21–30 of 166 posts
So what's the actual barrier to doing that? (also, why doesn't FF solve the issue since https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478839 was fixed? - it looks like guys from KISA are actually cooperating to implement the needed ciphers)
It is strange that I think of this after reading this, but this seems to be the dystopian future scenario that freaked out the DOJ due to Microsoft bundling the IE browser with Windows. It is strange that this situation actually came about, but due to reasons of law, not due to Microsoft's own market clout.
It isn't strange, most monopolies are born out of bad government policies, not the market.
1) Monopolies can and do happen in the absence of regulation. Indeed, it is frequently only through regulation or direct governmental action that competition can be encouraged. (The breakup of the AT&T monopoly comes to mind.)
2) The simple fact of the matter is that government and economic policy go hand-in-hand. Governments create the currency and enforce contracts. They also set the rules for the market. Without those rules -- laws -- markets descend quickly into chaos similar to what you see today in Somalia or Afghanistan: societies driven by tribal loyalties, inefficient, brutal, cruel, and repressive.
There are no monopolies in Somalia because there is no system in place for establishing corporate charters or enforcing contracts. This requires a strong government to serve as arbiter between disputing economic interests.
So then, 10 or 20 years ago, when the NSA needed a secret laboratory to experiment in, where they could blunder away at trial and error, perhaps a huge wind tunnel to test the aerodynamics of this bird, well South Korea sounds pretty good. Let's see if the pentagon can get them to agree to a few absurd pre-requisites and static global variables, while we bootstrap this absolutely enourmous program we're shoe-horning into place.
Typical of most MS bashing articles - this article is troll-bait at best and false at worst. Internet Explorer is not mandated by law. What happened was, the US had banned export of 128bit encryption software. The Korean government said screw that and created browser plugins - for BOTH Netscape and IE - to use 128bit encryption for online transactions. Netscape died and IE remained. I guess their implementation is pr…
To perform financial transactions online in Korea, you would need a plethora of software (often one from each party you would deal with) that revolved around security certificates that were issued by the banks that would store a hard copy of the certificate locally on your computer. Often it didn't work at all, not even getting into the security implications of the system. Bank hacking is so common in Korea, it's really disturbing. There is absolutely no accountability where the attempts at security do exist.
Also, you need to use your Citizen Number (basically a Social Security Number) to register for ANY service in Korea, even common websites. So everything you do can be traced via that single number. For foreigners, registering for common sites is usually impossible because our alien numbers are stored wherever normal citizen numbers are, so unless the site has a separate process for foreigners, you'd be out of luck. It's quite a mess. I can't say enough bad things.
On the bright side, start ups like Vingle in Seoul are doing a lot of tip the scales for the younger generation by only supporting modern browser versions (IE8+, not the most modern, but definitely a step up from IE6, which has a huge market share still, too), but it's a slow change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It isn't strange, most monopolies are born out of bad government policies, not the market. Citation needed. There are government mandated monopolies but you can also achieve a monopoly using purely free market tools and simply lock up all supply and/or distribution via aggressive investments. You seem to imply government-induced monopolies > free market monopolies, but provide no evidence or even an argument that t…
> Citation needed. Any real economist. Inevitably, if any industry is profitable, competition will arise. Government regulation (often through corruption) is the only mechanism which ensures a lack of competition. This can be observed in any industry throughout the last 100 years. You're right that companies can lock up the vast majority of a market by out-competing others, but this generally doesn't last very long (…
1) Property. If you have a monopoly on the property in a given area you can charge whatever you want for rent, and no competition will be around to add competition.
2) Vertical monopolies. If your company buys out not just the competition, but the entire supply chain, and there is a high cost of entry to being able to enter the market -- say automobiles -- then you can quash competition as it arises.
3) Coal mines. If the only job you can get is in a coal mine, and the operator of said mine owns all the mines in your geographic region, you don't have much of a choice. This is especially true if you are working 12+ hours a day 7 days a week for a pittance, or are a minor child.
4) This is libertarian fantasy and rightfully deserves the scorn and ridicule it has so far received in this thread.
There are many, many ways to abuse the market to the detriment of the workers, both with and without regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It isn't strange, most monopolies are born out of bad government policies, not the market. Citation needed. There are government mandated monopolies but you can also achieve a monopoly using purely free market tools and simply lock up all supply and/or distribution via aggressive investments. You seem to imply government-induced monopolies > free market monopolies, but provide no evidence or even an argument that t…
Consider the fact that if you refuse to do business with a private-sector monopoly the worst that'll happen is that you'll get a slightly less-effective alternative or in the worst case go without the good. If you refuse to participate in a government-mandated monopoly you can face civil and criminal charges. Also, a private-sector monopoly, no matter how seemingly entrenched, is always vulnerable to disruption (when…
That can be pretty bad if the "good" you are going without is food, shelter, a necessary medical procedure, or some other fundamental requirement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It isn't strange, most monopolies are born out of bad government policies, not the market. Citation needed. There are government mandated monopolies but you can also achieve a monopoly using purely free market tools and simply lock up all supply and/or distribution via aggressive investments. You seem to imply government-induced monopolies > free market monopolies, but provide no evidence or even an argument that t…
> Citation needed. Any real economist. Inevitably, if any industry is profitable, competition will arise. Government regulation (often through corruption) is the only mechanism which ensures a lack of competition. This can be observed in any industry throughout the last 100 years. You're right that companies can lock up the vast majority of a market by out-competing others, but this generally doesn't last very long (…
Any real economist can cite many monoplies that arise through market forces alone.
> Inevitably, if any industry is profitable, competition will arise.
This is not true. There are many different definitions of "profit", and there are many cases where an industry that makes a real business profit will not support a competitor that makes an economic profit. The obvious example is markets with very large economies of scale [1].
> Government regulation (often through corruption) is the only mechanism which ensures a lack of competition. This can be observed in any industry throughout the last 100 years.
I'm interpreting this to mean "only through government intervention can we ensure a lack of competition". Again, this is not true. Any party that can make a massive capital investment (which already vastly reduces the pool of competition) can enter a space and make any future entrance by a competitor completely unprofitable.
To see an example of this, lets go a century back in time to the day of Standard Oil. Standard Oil was notorious for leveraging its massive capital advantage to destroy its competitors. It would enter a new market and lower its prices (leveraging its massive war chest). Once its competitors left business, it would raise prices again to screw over consumers. After many people caught wind of this blatant market manipulation, it turned to deceptive practices and things like tying agreements [2].
What government policy led to the dominant monopoly of Standard Oil?
> You're right that companies can lock up the vast majority of a market by out-competing others, but this generally doesn't last very long (typically a decade or less).
Standard Oil was supreme for over thirty years. If only we could invent a time machine, to hear the gales of laughter from the businessmen of the day at the notion that Rockefeller became the king of oil by "out-competing" others.
He became dominant through backroom deals and anti-competitive practices. Government intervention was what finally ended the Standard Oil monopoly. It was also likely the only thing (barring the death of Rockefeller or some kind of market shift) that ever would.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_oil#Monopoly_charges_a...