Ted Roberts asks why his president, my congressman, my governor, the Postmaster General, or the county tax assessor isn't as eager to hear his opinions as a manufacturer of sugared, cola-flavored water? Politicians seem oblivious to the charms of consumer prejudices, but giants like Pepsi, and even local mom-and-pop barbecue caterers, whirl like a weather vane in their currents.
Why is there so much religious passion in the tone of the Microsoft critics? Why is it so difficult to understand that the marketplace is a far better evaluator of Microsoft's product than a federal judge who tries to synthesize, express, and enforce the whims of 20 million consumers whom he's never talked to?
The City of New York monopolizes the distribution of water, and as such the supply is always in jeopardy. Rather than study the details of the city's recently adopted Drought Management Plan, New York residents would be wiser to pray for rain.
With the Microsoft antitrust suit near a final settlement, it is a good time to take an entirely new direction in antitrust. That new direction ought to be its complete elimination. Its underlying concepts in economics and political philosophy need to be thoroughly discredited, and the legislation on which antitrust rests in practice needs to be repealed.
While the politicians and their media allies prattle on about "winners" and "losers" in the Microsoft antitrust case, they miss the larger story, one that has become a typical American tale: the ongoing assault of the Leviathan State upon the once free and productive business sector.
Everyone complains about bad service. From the airlines to telecommunications, we hear of the increasing number of consumer complaints. Diane Brady, a writer for Business Week, believes that she has the answer to why some of us might believe service is bad. Last year, she informed BW's readers that, once again, capitalism is running amok and now needs the hand of government more than ever to force businesses to properly serve their customers. "Why Service Stinks" told of unfairness abounding as firms go overboard to keep "good" customers and do everything they can to get rid of "bad" ones.
In a market economy, marginally "superior" technology-where it can be objectively defined-doesn't necessarily end up dominating, and that's the way it should be.
While government abuse and destruction does not usually garner enormous media attention, government's fervor to regulate is alive and well.
Why do economists like Becker and others who say they favor free markets blindly support antitrust laws in all of their wretched excesses?
Are today's CEOs greedy executives who thrive on corporate profits when times are good and when times are bad?
