I just want to start off by suggesting that if you really hope to ever convince more people that AC is necessary and viable, then you need to at least attempt to answer all or at least most of your critics substantive questions. It seems bizarre that Vhawk (and maybe you too) believe that it would not be helpful to pose a question like "How do we finance and maintain the roads in AC" and have posters offer solutions like a previous poster suggested. Why does it seem that ACers are more than a little bit evasive when it comes to detailing exactly how this AC system would work. Or should I not call it a system? Is it just that: anarchy? Chaos? Nothingness. I know that there are some who believe that better order will develop from chaos: Chaos Theorists. They are fun people to shoot the poop with over a case of beer and a couple fatties. Last I talked with one he tried to convince me that drivers would be safer by having no traffic lights. All that red/yellow/green regulation at those bottlenecked intersections is bad. Just let the drivers make their own decisions and we will all be better off. The Dutch School of Traffic. Probably why they have great public transport. Of course those trolleys and trams run on those Gott Damn regulated tracks. ZOMG gubment supported track monopoly. (Levity btw, don't focus on the last 2 or 3 sentences please).

It does you little good to focus on parts of your naysayers' opinions and assertions which are clearly attempts to inject a bit of levity into a discussion which can begin to make rabbit's eyes blur.

I mean, I continually ask you to tell me whether or not patents would be issued and enforced, and you just ignore it. I ask you if you would want 20 different companies running power lines and water pipes all over the place, and you just ignore it. Then, I ask you if you really desire different flavored vitamin water out of your tap and different color trash cans, and you wake up and say "of course not" and accuse me of solely focusing on the frivolous.

But if you really want to pretend that the only question I am raising has to do with colored trash cans, then let's pretend. You say that you are locked into the trash collection price and that you have to pay it. Tell me right now: How much does your city currently pay for trash collection per household in your city or town? What are the rates offered by independent collectors in your area by say Waste Management? Which price is better? Do you think that economies of scale might be achieved by your city bargaining and contracting with one company to collect all trash? Do you think that trash collectors are paid too much if they work for the city? Are their benefits to expensive? If you have no idea what the price of trash collection is, it might be because it is insignificant and not really worth wasting your time on. Just a hunch.

I've lived in some towns on Cape Cod where you have to take your own trash to the dump. Summertime there are mountains of trash. Wintertime there are anthills of it. It is not profitable for a private company to provide collection nor is it fiscally responsible for the government to provide it. Is this a market failure? Is this where a subsidy would be helpful like it is to guarantee our food supply? It's a pain in the ass. It's very expensive to have someone pick it up. Do you think that there are public safety concerns with pollution, foul odors, and health hazards if everyone gets to decide whether or not they should have their trash collected and removed or whether they should just bury it in the front, back, and side yards?

Also, you forgot to answer whether or not you thought that the sewer system was a god-awful government-mafia supported monopoly that should be left to individuals to decide. Do you at all understand why anarchy with no government, collectivism, or cooperation could be a very chaotic, smelly and hazardous place.

Don't forget the patent question.

Almost single supplier (what, 85-90% market share? I'm not sure) in the OS market. Anyone who buys a computer pays an OS 'tax' to microsoft. How many people now are basically forced into Microsoft because of what applications they need to run, or their businesses run and it is known to be compatable?

And below you say one thing that's half correct, but I'm going to correct it here. The marginal price of providing software is probably $2 (for the CD, packaging, and shipping). Probably less on the computer I just bought, since there is nothing physical I got, just an image on part of my computer. Thus, in perfect competition, the price of an OS ought to be around $2. Go to microsoft's website and see how much you need to pay to get a copy of windows.

They are able to compete on other things, yes, as in the walmart example. But even apple shows some monopoly characteristics, as they're currently suing knockoff brands to keep them out of the market. And as I proved above, they definitely have influence over prices.

I look forward to seeing pvnOS soon then . Actually once you've got an OS, the costs to distribute aren't much. But developing an OS? That's tremendously expensive. And if you want applications to go with your OS? That's more. And there's no guarantee at all that you'll capture significant market share, so the fixed cost of programming your OS could just be money flushed down the drain. See BeOS, OS2 for a couple of examples.

Basically most utilities (I used electricity as a stand-in...) and the microsoft example. Not tons of examples, I know, but some.

Part of that has to do with government regulation of the markets--SCE for instance made a direct comment about a power plant they were forced to divest from when the fires in Santa Barbara cut off power. That wasn't a good thing though, since the power plant wasn't in operation and so the power was lost for a while instead of being supplied by that plant. A single company would likely make better plans for redundancy than a hodgepodge of firms.

And I would agree with you that interconnection can work better in certain situations. But I think the burden is back on you to show how interconnection would work in (say) the electricity market, rather than all firms just having their own network. Additionally, why one firm would just allow others to get on their network when they've already built it. I think it's a good assumption that firms actively try to prevent competition from other firms rather than encourage it.

The price of an OS ought to be $2? Good news for you, there is a cheaper product available:

http://www.linux.com

I think that proves my point that microsoft does have pricing power.

The trouble with Linux was at least for a while (I do hope its gotten better, or will soon) that it was playing catchup over all the applications, and trailing the microsoft alternatives in most areas--Photoshop versus GIMP, Microsoft office versus OpenOffice, etc. And yes, the same thing can be said for the costs of the Microsoft versus Linux apps as well, but if you want something fully functional, with decent manuals/help (programmers hate doing those mundane sort of things) and interoperable with what most other people use, you've got only one choice.

Even Apple has made the decision into making their MACs Windows Compatible.

I don't understand your point. OS's are not commodities. They are differentiated based on features and usage. Windows has a product that is different than others. Its price is also very cheap. If Microsoft really could control price, it would sell for thousands, not $200.

$200 is pretty high I think. But you also get it free included with any PC.

$400 for Microsoft Office is pretty high I think. I mean a word processor and simple account program (Excel) cost $100-$200??? Granted they are very useful programs and everyone uses them. I haven't done any real economic analysis of the price nor do I know how much it costs to actually make the program, but compared to some other programs, it seems a little on the high side.

It's not "free", Microsoft makes every manufacturer include it and pay them (if they want to sell any PCs with Windows).

$200 for software is incredibly cheap. I'm in an industry where most software is minimum $3000 per seat.

Of course, they sell a lot more volume of them, but in general $200 is very cheap for software licenses.

Sorry...the logic is as follows.

1. Linux being given away for free shows that the marginal cost of an operating system is small enough that it can be given away for free. (pretty much like any other program

2. In perfect competition, the price charged is equal to the marginal cost (which we showed above was $0, or very close to that, if you want to count the CD and packaging, etc...)

so 3. Microsoft is not in a perfectly competitive market, and has pricing power.

Thus Microsoft is in fact a monopoly.

One more point: there's likely no way (even without any other competition) that microsoft would try to charge 'thousands'. I don't think there's any way that would maximize microsoft's profit. To show your claim, you'd have to have some information about the demand of consumers.

If they aren't able to control price the price would be equal to the marginal cost of producing it. Most firms are able t control prices somewhat in that they aren't price takers.

But this is true for any non-commodity. BMW's aren't sold at marginal cost, but they don't have a monopoly.

borodog is such a bad**s imo

You guys seem to be getting confused between the four different types of corporations.

There is
Monopoly
Oligopoly
Monopolistic Competition
Perfect Competition

Only in Perfect competition does MC = Cost of Product

Firms in Monopolistic Competition can be Price Makers to some degree and we all know where Oligopolies and Monopolies stand on being Price Makers.

If Microsoft isn't a monopoly which I think it is to much extent, it certainly is an Oligopoly and exhibits many of the same similarities as a Monopoly.

No, but they have some qualities of a monopoly. They have brand name recognition and they do have a "monopoly on selling BMWs." How powerful a brand is can vary across industries. Two powerful brand names that I would say come close to a monopoly (even though they aren't) are Scotch (tape) and Kleenex (tissues).

On a related note monopolies are only bad when they have a cost to society known as "dead weight loss." There is a loss to society when I would like to buy a product at greater than its cost of production and for whatever reason that good is not sold. I would be better off having it if I value it more than it costs to produce and you would be better off if you could sell another unit for more than it costs.

Well, yeah I know it sounds contradictory, but I think I would have the same problem if my friends did something illegal like vandalism or stealing. Would you report your friends for Petty Theft or mindless vandalism saying it was some type of small thing?

I like my friends and sometimes I wonder what the line would be if they committed a crime, when would I call the authorities. Quite simply I don't know and it would vary greatly with the situation.

This isn't necessary. We just need to convince them to leave us the hell alone.

Uhm, no. Nothing cheap about that. Personally, I use a free spreadsheet program that does almost everything Excel does (Gnumeric). Also, Google Docs is free. Microsoft Office, OTOH, is way over priced.

Google Docs has a lot of features missing that Microsoft Office does. In any case, I was referring to OS's. Google Docs is also paid for by ads.

$200 in the world of software is extremely cheap, compared to a lot of other software. You can only make money selling it that cheap if you sell absolute huge numbers of software (surprisingly if you have a near monopoly on it).

The fact that Microsoft has had a competing product introduced at a better price proves that there is no monopoly in that market, and its not even close.

No, I wouldn't report him to the state; I don't claim that the state is a good solution to settling disputes, so it would never cross my mind to do this. The solution I advocate is to encourage people to do what you think is right and disassociate from people as you see fit.

So that's how I'd handle it in my life. I think a violation of property is immoral, so if my friend vandalized someone's property, I'd probably suggest he be upfront about it and pay the guy retribution. If my friend didn't think this was a good idea, I'd weigh that information about him accordingly.

It's kind of an impossible hypothetical for me though, cause I don't really have anyone who I consider a friend who I think would be likely to do something like this and not agree he was in the wrong. So it's doubtful I'd be in this exact position where I have to talk to my friends about respect for other people's property; but in general I feel pretty comfortable acting consistently with what I claim to value.

Not that it's easy to be perfectly principled or anything. Everyone makes mistakes. But I think what's most important is recognizing a mistake, rather than finding a way to justify it. So my values are at least what I strive for. Hope that makes sense.

Certainly would vary a lot, so it's hard to discuss concrete situations on paper. To me, it's less black and white, so I don't really have the same "do I or don't I" concern. Calling an authority is never a legitimate solution to me. If my friend does something I think is questionable, I talk to him about it, ask him what he's thinking, perhaps encourage him to do something, etc., and then we both have that information about each other. I don't put myself in the position of having to judge black vs. white, which side of a concrete fence something is on, etc. The dilemma you point to here, I think, shows how rigid and inflexible things can be when authority and obedience are used to sort out life's complicated situations.

Yeah luckily my friends don't really do anything violent or illegal of that type of nature so its really only a hypothetical.

This is incorrect. Actually it might be more an indication of how bad the missing features are (that you mentioned), or other barriers to entry--including that people use it at work, that they've already learned the software, that the features take time to implement and the 'free' software doesn't have them yet, or other issues.

That is, the fact that there's a 'competing product' doesn't make microsoft not a monopoly. There are many ways that a company can maintain a monopoly.

I wouldn't say (if BMW were the only car manufacturer) that the existence of Yugo would make it not monopolistic.

Just be left alone and pay no taxes while the majority of people continue to pay taxes?

Drive on the roads for free? Be protected for free? Enjoy the luxury of a subsidized food supply which keeps prices down and several local grocers stocked to the brim with every imaginable product? Etc.

Nice racket this AC world would be for you.

It would vary with how hot his girlfriend is.

government is definitionally a market distortion, right?

no.