From: Petro <petro@playboy.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:14:53 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: Another question about free-markets...
In-Reply-To: <199810050453.XAA01444@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <v04011706b23ed6f87b5a@[206.189.103.244]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 12:58 AM -0500 10/5/98, James A. Donald wrote:
>At 11:53 PM 10/4/98 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>> Now in a free-market, by definition, there is no law. What
>> then is the responsibility of businesses other than the
>> pure unadulterated pursuit of profit?
>
>None whatsoever.

	One must also draw the distinction between long term profits, and
this quarters bottom line.

	Things that positively impact this weeks bottom line (say, dumping
PCB's in the local water supply) negatively impact next year/next decades
(all your prospective customers are either dead, or have 3.5 arms, and a
distinct lisp).

>> If this includes lying, denying consumers information, etc.
>> what harm is done, they have fulfilled their responsibility
>> to their shareholders (potentialy quite lucratively)
>
>While there is a sucker born every minute, the strategy you
>describe is for the most part unlikely to be profitable.

	In the _long_ term.

>Fortunately the most cost effective method of eliminating all
>competition is that followed by Alcoa, to deliver a
>satisfactory product at the cheapest possible price.

	Funny how he never talks about that one.



--
petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy.
petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else.      They wouldn't like that.
                                              They REALLY
Economic speech IS political speech.          wouldn't like that.