At 10:20 AM 5/19/98 -0500, jbone wrote:
>> 6) They are proponents of "managed" Kapitalism.
>
>Ya know, I'm about fed up with being set up with terms like this and
>"socialistic" and "stalinist." It's what I get for dropping trow on
>this whole thing. My personal politics are generally pretty far right
I kinda thought that would get you going!
:-)
But seriously, it is a very slippery slope. The general public seems to
think that Premier Clinton has the controls to the economy hidden under his
desk. Where
he can tweek the GDP, fiddle with factory inventories, create jobs, etc.
We all know thats just a intern under his desk. But the myth prevails, that
somehow the
government can and should manage society, and thus economics, instead of
the other way around!
>
>I really don't see what everyone gets so up in arms about --- either the
>laws were broken or they weren't; either Microsoft has achieved its
>dominant position through superior product / business practices or
>through illegal anticompetitive practices. The court will provide what
>everyone and every company in this country is entitled to --- a fair
>trial.
I thinketh you are very wrong, this will *not* be a fair trial. It will be a
witch-hunt-tar-and-feather-Beltane-belly-rubbin-tribal-dance. There is
simply too much
money and power involved here. Sad really, all Bill had to do
was give a little cash to the DNC in '94.
>Apple pie, guns, and stop calling me a *&^*&$! socialist just because
>there is *one* situation where I believe gov't is required to step into
>business affairs (addressing the possibility of "unnatural" monopoly
>creation and market unbalancing) and this just happens to be it.
>
I guess I found the right button?
I sure hope the Guvment is fair, impartial, and even-handed here, but I
wouldn't count on it.
I'm not a lawyer of course, but my gut feel is that MS has broken/bent
antitrust law.
I hardly think that justifies the sweeping breakup you suggest.
I still love you though.
johnboy