ClumsyMonkey.net

Narbus wrote:Again, Linux and Mac's.

Macs Rule!

She's a fucking bitch.

Ouch

OK, I said it yesterday when I was pissed. Let's move on.

Ok Alan. I will let you be...for now

I hope this is goodbye wrote:Just ignore her. She's a fucking bitch.

You're right alan. I'm the one who personally attacks everyone. Just like Dan was provoked to call narbus a moron right? You and him are the biggest fucking hypocrites on this board.

1. You attacked Dan, not everyone

2. Look above buddy, I apologized

3. If I kept going on about this, I'd be banned, so why are you still here?

Sorry, i just seemed to notice that myself and the rest of the people on the board are being called hypocrites by those who actually are. It's been getting to me, but i've made my point. So that is all.

Grow up. Everyone else here has moved on. Cass has. I have. Megan has. Dan hasn't said anything at all. And here you are, trying to keep this fight alive. Stop it. If you can't stop taking shots at me and trying to start fights, I am pretty sure the board would agree with me when I say leave. You can't handle letting a fight die? Go somewhere else. Fight with your family or friends. Just stop trying to cause more shit here. You've done enough.

I just read through the topic and commented bluntly on what i saw. According to you that's alright

Narbus wrote:Yes, it'd be good for the consumer for the three or four months that it takes for me to go under. But I doubt WalMart will leave those prices that low very long afterwards. It's an unpleasant cycle, and without an established retailer who can compete (which is rarer than you think, KMart had to declare bankruptcy recently because it couldnt' compete with WalMart's prices) then it's one that can continue indefinately. New store moves in-> Lower prices-> store goes under-> raise prices, and there's nothing to do about it, since WalMart's the only store in the area, so they can charge what they like.

This is possible, I suppose, if Wal Mart slashed their prices to the point of selling at a loss in order to put you out of the area. But if Wal Mart repeated this procedure every time they had a competitor they wanted to squash, pretty soon they would start to erode consumer trust.

Besides, people always want an alternative. I know plenty of kids who run Linux just because it isn't Windows. Even in an unregulated market, other firms could enter a monopolistic market and take away market share.

Especially with a superior product and/or business plan.

Like Mac? Or Linux? Or any other OS that doesn't crash as often, and doesn't have the giant security bugs that currently exist but the pain and cost of switching OS's is simply to prohibitive to warrant it because MS makes things that are just barely good enough?

The key words in this paragraph are pain and cost. If the Mac computers or IBM's running Linux are superior to Windows in terms of reliability, they are not as user friendly or as widely accessible. That is not the fault of the market, that is the fault of the corporation pushing the product.

Well, obviously, the lack of government and regulation that would make it worthless for them to have friends on Capitol Hill would also result in a lack of laws to prosecute them in the first place, so either way they walk with millions, and screw their employees.

Now this falls more under the concept of justice then it does captialism.

Tell me, how did they do it again? I really have no idea anymore. I barely paid any attention to this when it was happening.

Again, Linux and Mac's.

Does anybody know what share of the OS market linux has now? I thought it was up to a quarter. But I can't be sure.

mosaik wrote:This is possible, I suppose, if Wal Mart slashed their prices to the point of selling at a loss in order to put you out of the area. But if Wal Mart repeated this procedure every time they had a competitor they wanted to squash, pretty soon they would start to erode consumer trust.

They already do slash their prices and such. It's just that the majority sees the words "lower prices" or "sale" and ignore all else. WalMart has a rather appaling track history in all kinds of categories; censorship, refusal to allow unionization of its employees, questionable use of overseas labor, all kinds of stuff. Yet they're still the largest retailer in the world.

Besides, people always want an alternative. I know plenty of kids who run Linux just because it isn't Windows. Even in an unregulated market, other firms could enter a monopolistic market and take away market share.

Especially with a superior product and/or business plan.

Linux is an odd case. It's open source, so a few thousand people all over the world are just poking at it in their free time to make it work better. It's kinda a giant hobby for those folks.
A pharmacy, or more "traditional" (for lack of a better word) business requires more than a hobby-like interest. Since the owner needs to actually make enough money to cover the necessities while keeping the business open, it's not feasible to share the profit from a small company with thousands, nor it is feasible for one or two people to start the business as a hobby.

The key words in this paragraph are pain and cost. If the Mac computers or IBM's running Linux are superior to Windows in terms of reliability, they are not as user friendly or as widely accessible. That is not the fault of the market, that is the fault of the corporation pushing the product.

Macs less user friendly than Windows? Macs are built to be more user friendly. It's what they do.
The widely accessible bit is a catch-22. In order to be all over the place and widely accessible Apple would have to hold a large market share. But they can't hold a large market share because their computers aren't all over the place. So.

Now this falls more under the concept of justice then it does captialism.

Tell me, how did they do it again? I really have no idea anymore. I barely paid any attention to this when it was happening.

If I recall correctly (and it has been a long time since I bothered looking) I think the exec's looted the holy hell out of their employees pension funds through some rather..."creative" accounting.

Does anybody know what share of the OS market linux has now? I thought it was up to a quarter. But I can't be sure.

A full quarter? Really. I know it is growing very, very fast, but I'm not sure how much it's in use.

I did find that the vast majority of people converting to Linux are coming from Windows, though. I would like to raise the question: What if Mr. Gates suddenly rewrote his OS to be 100% incompatible with non-windows official software? So when converting it wouldn't be possible to transfer over key documents, files, etc etc etc. And when companies did try and release new software onto windows, they'd have to agree to make it windows only, or miss out on the bulk of the consumer market.

i guess my thing is, i don't see a problem with any of it besides the enron deal, which again falls more to an issue of justice then an issue of capitalism.

the point i am making is that economic law dictates that consumers will buy the best product available at the lowest price they can. if wal-mart decided to jack prices and sell shitty products, another retailer (in canada, we call it Zellers) would take over their position.

it is not possible for wal-mart, by simply having lots of money, to stamp out the entrepneurial talents of other individuals. good businesses grow. wal-mart grew because it is/was a good business.

in an unregulated market, the only advantage a business can have is a better plan or product. it's impossible to otherwise bar firms from entering the market - yes, i consider price slashing to undersell competing firms a better business plan.

i don't see why Bill Gates shouldn't make his products exclusive to windows only. it would help him make money.

we're not in business to help out our competitors. business is not supposed to be fair.

actually, the execs didn't loot the pensions. they used "creative" accounting to overinflate the price of their stock.

the employees only lost money because they invested all of their pension money in enron stock (1 of, i believe 8 options the company offered), which bottomed out when the shit hit the fan.

the execs only got out unscathed because they knew to get rid of their stock.

mosaik wrote:i guess my thing is, i don't see a problem with any of it besides the enron deal, which again falls more to an issue of justice then an issue of capitalism.

In a truely free market system, there would be no regulations on what they did, and therefore no punishment for it. People with money could, and would, screw over their underlings because there is no retribution. Without a government, then how could a person, or even several persons, go up against a guy with a few million to spend?

the point i am making is that economic law dictates that consumers will buy the best product available at the lowest price they can. if wal-mart decided to jack prices and sell shitty products, another retailer (in canada, we call it Zellers) would take over their position.

Economic law is wrong. McDonalds makes truely ass-y food, but they stay in business. Why? It's the comfort factor. If you're in a big city, and you don't know where to eat, hey, there's McDonalds. Yes, the food is ass, but at least I know what I'm getting.
The same thing applies to WalMart. If people are used to going to WalMart, then that's where they'll go, even if a small town store opens up with better merchandise/service/whatever.
Also, the best/cheapest thing is a see-saw. People will buy crap if it's cheap, where they'll avoid quality that's more expensive. That's what WalMart capitalizes on.

And once walmart does put a stranglehold on the market, then you have to go get a job at walmart, because it's the only business around, and why wouldn't they fire you if you shop somewhere else and so on. Maybe some people can ride out the year or so with no income that this system would provide, but not many of them would work at WalMart.

it is not possible for wal-mart, by simply having lots of money, to stamp out the entrepneurial talents of other individuals. good businesses grow. wal-mart grew because it is/was a good business.

Yes, it is. They've done it before. The cost effectivness of buying in such huge bulks is not available to everyone, and WalMart can afford to take a bit of a dive while putting you out of business.

in an unregulated market, the only advantage a business can have is a better plan or product. it's impossible to otherwise bar firms from entering the market - yes, i consider price slashing to undersell competing firms a better business plan.

Then you will bar other firms from entering the market. If I knew I was going to be going up against WalMart, then I wouldn't even bother.

i don't see why Bill Gates shouldn't make his products exclusive to windows only. it would help him make money.

we're not in business to help out our competitors. business is not supposed to be fair.

Here's an interesting point. Business shouldn't be fair. But businesses aren't people, and shouldn't have the same rights as people. It is in the best interest of the individual to have healthy competition in the economy. Stores having to be creative and innovative is much better for the consumer than one business in each area doing the same thing over and over and having the muscle to beat down anyone who tries to horn in.
But guess which one is cheaper for the business? So guess which one they'd like to do?