Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (04/02/89)
> Rockefeller of Standard Oil used to cut prices in local areas to kill > off small competitors, then raise the prices again. The Japanese Please verify. According to some authors this is a myth that is unsupported by actual hard data from the period. Not having seen the data either way, I will not claim which side is right, only point out that it is not a proven statement. > Americans are not anxious to lower American wages to the levels found > elsewhere in the world, though the current trade policy leaves things Too true. In a truly competitive world economy wages and prices world wide would be driven to a median. The overly low would rise to meet the overly high. So obviously, those who HAVE will use the government to keep it at the expense of those who HAVE NOT. It is as true of the big aerospace companies as it is of the typical mill worker. Management and labor both wish to use the power of government to hold or enlarge their peice of the pie at the expense of others who are not so fortunate. Can't let those <fill in your favorite slur> get on the first rung... > unless its prices are competitive. A very common practice in Japan is for > a new business to be protected within the country by steep import > tariffs, And as long as the Japanese are willing to subsidize my purchase of goods, fine. Their loss improves my living standard by allowing me to purchase more goods and services for the same dollars than I would have otherwise. Thus I get my stereo AND some other goods as well. Everyone gains except the people who supply the subsidy. And if it is indeed a case where the particular business gets a foothold and kills off it's competition, then I suggest that you buy stock in the winner and invest your profits in space business. You CAN buy from the Tokyo Exchange, although not a lot of individuals do so. Of course I would also like to totally discontinue all defense expenditures on their behalf. That would put our economies on a more equal footing. >business! Mafia tactics rule in the US Government's economic policies. I agree totally. The US subsidizes industries massively. Some are blatant like the way the american farmer uses government to ripoff the public. Others are not so blatant, as in the massive defense spending used to support uncompetitive aerospace firms. Others are almost criminal, as in the quota structures set up on behalf of particular industry lobbies, usually by the method of buying a congressman and getting him to log roll with other bought congressmen. Yes, certain PARTICULAR subsidies may be less that elsewhere, but when you toss in the sneaky ones, our government ain't no better than the Japanese. If not worse. Once a government grows past a small Jeffersonian size, it becomes a status quo institution whose sole purpose is to make sure those currently on top stay there. This is the reason why laissez faire never had a chance here or anywhere else. Those who have would rather not have to work (to societies benefit) to keep it. Not even a monopoly is bad if they know their business is at risk if they don't provide fair service and fair prices. Governments provide the service of insuring that such competition is kept down "at gunpoint". Speaking of monopolies. I'm gleefully visualizing the collapse of all the public power utilities if this fusion technique pans out. "Natural" monopolies are a figment of the imagination.