Re: Allocation of IP Addresses
At 12:45 PM 3/14/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
In any case, so what? Economic allocation of resources is, if anything, more important when there is significant scarcity.
Perry
This also creates monopolies where, if this were to occur, would give Uncle Sugar plenty of reason to step in and arbitrate and/or reallocate. - paul
Paul Ferguson writes:
At 12:45 PM 3/14/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
In any case, so what? Economic allocation of resources is, if anything, more important when there is significant scarcity.
This also creates monopolies where, if this were to occur, would give Uncle Sugar plenty of reason to step in and arbitrate and/or reallocate.
I hate to argue politics, but you are imposing it upon me. Monopolies are a chimera, a myth. Almost all monopolies that last for more than a couple of years have been the result of government regulation preventing market entry -- AT&T being a shining example. U.S. Steel was formed as a way of eliminating competition in the steel industry by merging all the major players. Within a few years, it had lost some outrageous portion of the market, and without government intervention. Standard Oil was rapidly losing market share when it was broken up. J.P. Morgan and friends never succeeded in keeping a railroad cartel together for more than a month or two before they thought up the Interstate Commerce Commission as a way of enforcing cartel agreements by having the government enforce railroad rates. (This latter bit is not a joke -- almost all government regulation of this sort started to the benefit of monopolists.) OPEC, the great oil cartel, exists outside of all government regulation of its activities. Today, even though its members still control world oil production, OPEC is almost toothless and oil prices in real dollars are lower than they were when OPEC first asserted itself. There have been a few instances of monopolies, but almost always because a particular company was operating extremely efficiently and with very low profitability -- these monopolies have almost always died as soon as either of those conditions changed. I can direct you to dozens of books on this subject if you wish. None of this should be surprising. Monopolies and cartels exist in an unstable position in the economic realm. They are like highly energetic highly reactive compounds in the chemical world -- if you sit atop a high energy curve without much needed to kick you off, you don't exist for long. If you examine where monopolies sit on the supply/demand curve, if they are to make maximal profit they inevitably end up producing an unserved section of the demand curve that will mean a potential profit for a lower cost distributor. In cartels, "cheating" is always a winning strategy for a cartel maker because large profits are made by selling more than is allocated by the cartel -- at least for a while. These creatures, monopolies and cartels, fly apart very fast once someone senses how vulnerable they are. In short, the entire monopoly dragon is a myth created by friends of government regulation to promote regulation. One might as well worry about the sky falling. Perry
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Monopolies are a chimera, a myth. Almost all monopolies that last for more than a couple of years have been the result of government regulation preventing market entry -- AT&T being a shining example.
It is disingenuous to claim that monopolies are a myth merely because they haven't existed in recent history. Monopolies have been illegal for the past 100 years. And unlike many other illegal activities, it's sort of hard to run a monopoly covertly. Why not just say that retail nuclear weapons outlets are impossible because no one can give you an example of one? Would you claim there have been no anti-monopoly or anti-trust actions ever (successfully) prosecuted under Taft-Hartley? Or that Taft-Hartley itself is just entirely the product of deluded morons? Actually, I suppose you would. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | http://www.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Barry Shein writes:
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Monopolies are a chimera, a myth. Almost all monopolies that last for more than a couple of years have been the result of government regulation preventing market entry -- AT&T being a shining example.
It is disingenuous to claim that monopolies are a myth merely because they haven't existed in recent history.
I'm arguing that they haven't ever really existed, except with government intervention to create them. Pick a point where you claim they have existed and an example or two of a lasting monopoly and we can talk.
Would you claim there have been no anti-monopoly or anti-trust actions ever (successfully) prosecuted under Taft-Hartley?
Would you claim that there have never been successful prosecutions for witchcraft? Perry
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:40:24 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
I'm arguing that they haven't ever really existed, except with government intervention to create them.
Guess this you could claim "government intervention" for most anything, but I suggest you read up on Carnagie Steel, Standard Oil, and a few others at the turn of the century. And, if you want to claim that these were local, go out and buy a diamond. While there are a few exceptions, DuBeers controlled the world's diamond market totally until the past decade and still could easily destroy the worlds diamond market in a day. Yes, monopolies have and continue to exist. (A monopoly on IPv4 address space is very improbable and would certainly be short-lived, though!) R. Kevin Oberman Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) National Energy Research Supercomputer Center (NERSC) EMAIL: oberman@es.net Phone: +1 510 422-6955
"Kevin Oberman" writes:
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 00:40:24 -0500 From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
I'm arguing that they haven't ever really existed, except with government intervention to create them.
Guess this you could claim "government intervention" for most anything, but I suggest you read up on Carnagie Steel, Standard Oil, and a few others at the turn of the century.
I have. If you read my messages in detail, you would have seen my comments on U.S. Steel (Carnegie Steel never controlled the bulk of the market) and Standard Oil. I suggest that *you* read up on them. You are probably operating on the vague comments you heard in your high school history classes, not on real reading.
And, if you want to claim that these were local, go out and buy a diamond. While there are a few exceptions, DuBeers controlled the world's diamond market totally until the past decade and still could easily destroy the worlds diamond market in a day.
How could they "destroy the market"? Is there a "diamond market" sitting in a hallway somewhere that I can shoot or something? Perry
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Barry Shein wrote:
Would you claim there have been no anti-monopoly or anti-trust actions ever (successfully) prosecuted under Taft-Hartley? Or that Taft-Hartley itself is just entirely the product of deluded morons?
Howdy...........Taft-Hartley is Labor Legislation *not* Anti-Trust. Are you referring to the Clayton Act? Sherman Antitrust laws?......Ron Ronald Barron Yokubaitis A Texas NetWorking, Inc. Texas Networking Inc. B TOTAL INTERNET SOLUTIONS San Antonio 210-272 8111 5 $9.95 Internet Access Austin 512-472 2532 L e-mail info@texas.net J http://www.texas.net _.. . ._ _... ..... ._.. ._ _ _ ._ _... ..... ._.. ._ _ _ _._
participants (5)
-
Barry Shein
-
Kevin Oberman
-
Paul Ferguson
-
Perry E. Metzger
-
Ronald Barron Yokubaitis