Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (
More info?)
keith wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 17:24:08 -0700, Robert Myers wrote:
>
>
>>Del Cecchi wrote:
>>
>>>Robert Myers wrote:
>>
>>>>Much of the progress of civilization and been built on the creation of
>>>>monopolies, and competition is not always good. Many of the activities
>>>>that technologists admire and dream about require enormous
>>>>concentrations of power and of wealth, and the ruthless creation of
>>>>monopolies has more often than not been what has allowed those
>>>>concentrations to appear.
>>>>
>>>>What do you think the computer industry would look like if it hadn't
>>>>been for IBM's ruthlessness? Follow comp.arch for a while and try to
>>>>grasp how much of the work was done by IBM when it was a monopoly.
>>>>What IBM didn't do, AT&T Bell Labs did. The insularity that went along
>>>>with IBM's enormous wealth and influence, not the actions of
>>>>regulators, eventually brought the monopoly to an end. AT&T was
>>>>brought down by regulatory activity, and it was not necessarily a good
>>>>thing.
>>>
>>>Ah Robert, your historical revisionism again. IBM was never found to be
>>>a monopoly after 1956.
>>
>>Pass my post along to IBM's legal department. I'm not taking back a
>>word. *I* find them to have been a monopoly long after 1956.
>
>
> Ah, and you fry Yousuf for making the same sorts of arguments about Intel.
> Nice double-standard there, RM. Most of us call that "hypocrisy".
>
>
>>>I gather you think monopoly is good?
>>
>>Neither good nor bad, necessarily. On the whole, monopolies have
>>probably done more to advance what is generally called civilization than
>>to impede it. Whether the advancement of what is generally known as
>>civilization is a good thing might be debated.
>
>
> Thus, by and large, they're good, in your opinion.
>
>
>>>You probably like central planning as well. Trust me it isn't good.
>>
>>No need to trust you. And, nothing personal, but I wouldn't. The
>>number of wrong opinions about economics that have been uttered in human
>>history surely exceeds the number of humans who have ever lived. In any
>>case, we have empirical evidence that at least some versions of central
>>planning don't work.
>>
>
> You're not exempt, "trust me".
>
>
>>>>As to my thinking Intel's case being so strong, that's something you
>>>>just made up. I'm sure that Intel has pushed things to the point
>>>>where their lawyers will have to work to earn their money. And the
>>>>*lawyers* on *both* sides *will* get *their* money.
>>>
>>>Sometimes companies, like people, do things because they can and it
>>>seems to be in their best interest and they can't conceive that they
>>>might get caught and the penalty might be extreme. Enron, Worldcom,
>>>Itel, healthsouth, etc etc.
>>>
>>
>>I've tried to make it clear that, on my scale of ethics, the damage done
>>to the public good by Intel doesn't make it into the Enron or Worldcom
>>league. Probably Healthsouth, too, but there I don't know the story
>>well enough. You're free to make your own value judgments. Just don't
>>expect your value judgments to be universally accepted. I don't.
>>
>
> So you keep saying. Others think quite differently. I can;t see much
> difference between Intel and M$, these days.
>
>
>>>>>I do pay attention to what's happening in the world, though not
>>>>>everything. I dont know why you have mentioned it. Are you trying to
>>>>>justify Intel's practices because they are not as bad as other things
>>>>>in the world? Well this group is very focussed on the chips. If you
>>>>>are worried about world Hunger, Intel can feed a lot of mouths with 2
>>>>>billion a quarter!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I didn't mention world hunger, but I did mention genocide, which is a
>>>>problem that can't be cured so easily with money. I mentioned what's
>>>>happening in the world because I find the self-righteousness of
>>>>business theoreticians more than a little annoying. You don't have a
>>>>need for inexpensive top of the line processors. The world won't
>>>>necessarily be a better place if the AMD/Intel competition works the
>>>>way you want it to. It doesn't matter all that much whether
>>>>competition in business is fair or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Competition is good. Free markets are good. Bureaucracies are bad.
>>>Who are the elite that they should determine what is best for us
>>>proles?
>>>
>>
>>Just this very afternoon, I was recounting for myself the number of
>>people now in--what would you call them?--policy roles I had known as a
>>lad--no doubt because, being an overachiever myself, I tended to be
>>around other overachievers. The ones who have made it big tend to be on
>>that Milton Friedmanish end of things. They are definitely the elite.
>>They are definitely making, or trying to make, decisions for others.
>>Marvelous things, elites: they can make anything work for them:
>>bureaucracies, monopolies, free markets, whatever's going. That's why
>>they're elites. You really should break up all those Wall Street
>>Journal editorials by reading, say, a little Nietzsche.
>
>
>>My being able to say these things so calmly is, I hope, a sign of
>>maturity. It used to infuriate me the way that the free market types
>>would pontificate about competition and freedom and then turn around and
>>twist every rule of politics to their advantage, often at the expense of
>>"fair" competition and what I took to be freedom. No more. I now see
>>that *everything* is to the best in this best of all possible worlds.
>
>
> What a bunch of pompous hooey! Yikes!
Gee I find it is the elite academics and celebrities who fall for
collectivism and central planning. I presumed it to be because they
think that then they would be in charge, being so superior and more
intelligent than the rabble.
I would have snipped but decided not to. If I can stand it at 28.8kb so
can others.
>
--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”
It would be a very good thing for the industry,
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram