Group: alt.philosophy · Group Profile
Author: EdEd Date: Sep 11, 2008 08:38
On Sep 10, 4:23Â pm, Fred Weiss papertig.com> wrote:> On Sep 10, 9:53Â am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> ... It would seem that their economic best interest is
>> served by merging instead of competing; the resulting company would
>> have more market leverage, more freedom to set prices and larger
>> profits in absolute terms.
>
> It's a very complex question whether a specific merger would be
> beneficial to a given company or not, with many variables involved.
> Far more variables than they ones you mention. Many mergers don't end
> up successful - and end up case studies at business schools to
> understand why. One perhaps most mentioned with wry cyncism was AOL's
> takeover of Time-Warner. Yes, we tend to forget that it was AOL which
> took over Time-Warner, especially now that AOL has become Time-
> Warner's albatross. Or the Hewlett-Packard takeover of Compaq.
> Remember Compaq. Forget Compaq. HP would have done far better without
> it and it certainly didn't do Carly Fiorna's career any good. She was
> canned soon after.
>
> This isnt't to say some mergers aren't beneficial and for precisely
> the reasons you mention. But nothing, merged or not, renders a company
> immune from competition. The anti-trust laws aren't needed for that
> purpose - nor has it ever been demonstrated that they are - Â just a
> free and open market.
>
> Furthermore, competition is good for business - even if a given
> businessman looking at it myopically doesn't grasp it, especially if a
> Wal-Mart has just opened up on the outskirts of town. He just needs to
> take a hard look at his business and think of ways to adjust it to the
> new market reality. Businessmen that do that succeed. Those that
> don't, well....no one said it was easy, nor is there any reason why it
> should be.
>
> Fred Weiss
You've been courteous so I'll test your patience even further :-).
For a market to be "free" one would think that there should be no
constraint on trade. In our current market there are very many
constraints on trade, particularly in certain items. I was wondering
if you thought any of these constraints are justified or whether you
thought all should be eliminated.
Metals: Currently trade in certain metals is severely restricted,
beryllium, uranium, plutonium and columbium (niobium) are examples.
Do you favor free trade in these metals? It could potentially be a big
market.
Explosives: Most explosives are restricted, some drastically so.
Information: Lots of restrictions. The three big credit rating
companies do a lot of business with the data that they collect and
store but they could do lots more business if they were not restricted
in who they could sell to. Google is currently prevented from
displaying most scientific and professional journals on line, although
they have scanned them and could do so.
Drugs: I'm talking theraputic drugs, not recreational one, although I
recognize there is an overlap. Currently you can't market a drug, say
a cure for prostate cancer, without elaborate test results and a
license. A lot of new business would result if these restrictions
were lifted.
Organics: Trade in microorganisms like anthrax is currently
restricted. So all also in body parts for transplant.
Is there a role for Government in restricting free trade or should all
these artificial barriers be knocked down?
| 
