From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 07:37:40 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Garment industry.....
Message-ID: <199810061240.HAA07266@einstein.ssz.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text



Hi,

Sorry, I'm going to have to back out for the next few days because of work
load (I've barely had time to read all the traffic), but ...

To answer a qeuestion about the garment industry being monopolistic.

Go back, read the original post on that issue *AGAIN*. Pay particular
attention to the *PERIOD OF TIME I SPECIFICALY MENTIONED*. If you actualy
read it all the way through, and slowly so you can comprehend it, you will
find that your protestations about the industry being monopolistic *today*
are irrelevant. My point was focused on 60-80 years *IN THE PAST*. In
particular the 1920's and 30's. (If you're going to scream "foul", at least
be at the correct yard line on the field)

My mention of the phone book implied you'd have to go to the library and get
a *PERIOD* phonebook (that was my mistake, any true anarcho-capitalist or
free-market maven is not likely to actualy use real-world examples - they're
so messy). And yes, they had phones then, you could even have them in any
color as long as it was black.

Though the point *CAN* be made that even today sweatshops are continouly
being found in places like Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, etc. Just check
your local newspaper. The reason that these are important is that they are
indicators of a tendency of manufacturers to cut costs/overhead to the bone
when left to their own wiles. This is a *VERY* negative indicator for those
who feel that even an unregulated garment industry can exist in a regulated
market, let alone a free-market.

Again, businesses are run by people with the express intent of making money,
in many cases at whatever cost to their employees and society as a whole.
With this sort of psychological tendency the argument that free-markets will
work is flawed. A commen comment in business classes and boardrooms today is
to 'dominate the market'. That means *eliminate competition*. *THAT* means
create a monopoly if at all possible and the laws to the contrary (which I
hae yet to see anyone bring up a priori in these situations) be damned. Of
course it should be pointed out that it's good legal and business practice
*NOT* to mention these so that it can't be used against one as a
premeditated intent. Something Microsoft seems to have forgotten in their
raft of internal memo's about specificaly kludging DrDos.

Another point I made several weeks to a couple of months ago regarded
companies who *help* their competition in order to limit their ability to
enter into specific markets as competitors seems to have born fruit. Over
the last few weeks several internal documents from Microsoft were released
(check the CNN and other archives) which seem to indicate a clear intent by
Microsoft to *help* Novell and Apple with technology with the express intent
of keeping them out of niche or target markets as competitors. Economic
slight of hand...

Course that isn't going to stop you from wailling for the dead (though could
you keep it down so I can sleep since the temperature around here has
finaly broken and it's not 90F at midnite).


    ____________________________________________________________________

                            The seeker is a finder.

                                     Ancient Persian Proverb

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------