Prosperity TVI love you man! 🙂 You make such a big difference in my life by just writing these simple intellectually stimulating prosperity blogs and you don't know it. Viva prosperidad!!!
The last post we talked about the dangers that socialism and communism pose to human spirit and the chance to manifest prosperity. Some of the people who commented worried if free enterprise could really provide opportunity for all, and Bones raised the issue of monopolies.
Actually this monopoly issue is the red herring that gets tossed about every time the issue comes up. Total bullshit, and just more of the memes (mind viruses) that governments try to infect you with. They would have you believe they are the natural result of capitalism, but in fact, the opposite is true. As my friend and critical think Bob Burg notes, any and all monopolies were either totally government imposed (postal service), government sponsored (telephone back in early 20th century – interesting how prices came down once the monopoly ended) or government-bribed (where the special-interest Lobbyists come into play). Monopolies can ONLY exist through government force; otherwise there is always some gutsy new entrepreneur that will come along and take away the business.
A couple years back, I was waiting in an airport lounge, when I picked up a copy of "Fortune" magazine. It had a column by Stuart Alsop, criticizing Microsoft and Bill Gates. Headlined, "The Right Thing to Regulate," he continued spreading the meme that Microsoft is a monopoly (Which he probably doesn’t even realize he is spreading, since he has been infected and parasitized like so many of the “experts” in the financial world.), and called for government action against it.
What an easy target. One that is sure to be popular with the herd. Why, everybody can agree that Microsoft is the death star destroying everything in its way until they control the world. I mean Gates is worth what, $56 billion last time I checked. “How much is enough, anyway?”
Wrong. Very, very wrong.
When Alsop writes a column like he does, pandering to the lack and limitation beliefs of his readers - he simply demonstrates his real absence of understanding on how capitalism and free enterprise actually work.
It’s interesting to note that when someone asked Ayn Rand why Americans are so anti-intellectual, she replied that it was because America's intellectuals were so anti-American. The Alsop column is a perfect demonstration of that. America is the only country in the world founded on the principles of free enterprise, yet Fortune magazine that is supposed to be an icon of the entrepreneur mentality, regularly prints such silly socialist blather as this.
More importantly, what do you think happens to you when you read such inane drivel? It programs you for lack. You see yourself as a helpless victim of the billion-dollar corporation, needing the government to “save” you from its abuses.
What is Microsoft's crime?
That they created software that millions of people want to use. Millions of people who are not that computer savvy, including senior citizens and young kids - have learned that we can actually work a computer that uses the Windows operating system.
But Bones, I know what you’re thinking: Didn't the US government say that Microsoft was bundling their Internet browser with the operating system, therefore strangling trade, and creating a monopoly?
(Sigh.) Here's the analogy. Suppose Tony Robbins and I are doing a seminar on the same weekend, both are in Chicago. I offer a free CD album with your seminar registration. Should Tony sue? Petition the government? He could claim unfair trade, restraint of trade, and monopoly.
Or why doesn't he just offer a free CD album with his own seminar? Or better yet, he could offer two!
You see the government does not need to legislate seminar companies, control prices and determine value. (Let alone run banks, insurance companies, and car companies!) If you let free enterprise work - it will take care of the consumer all by itself. Competition is what keeps prices low, and values high.
If you are serious about success - Bill Gates should be one of the heroes at the top of your list. And Microsoft should be treated by the US government like what it really is - a true American success story.
It's easy to depict Microsoft as the billion-dollar monster, devouring everything in its path. That's what meme-infected herd media does. It's easy
pickings, pandering to the Joe the plumber crowd. It’s like bobbing for water.
These deceptions ignore one very simple fact. Microsoft is a company formed by a couple of kids who dropped out of college - because they had an idea and a dream. Gates and Paul Allen created a company based on innovation and attracted people like Richard Brodie, and legions of other bright people.
The thing that will ultimately control Microsoft is not government regulation. It is the fact that right now, all over the world, there are other bright kids sitting in a dorm room somewhere with nothing but empty pizza boxes - who will come up with the next development in software, one that could make Word, Excel, Internet Explorer, or even Windows obsolete.
And they will do this, driven by the desire to live the American dream, as personified by Gates, Allen, and the thousands of millionaires created by Microsoft.
I remember when I first read the Fortune column, I was a dedicated Windows use. Yet today I’m writing on a MacBook, have a MacBook Air, iPod and iPhone. And using the Firefox browser. Why? Because the free market came up with innovations that I like better.
The media, government and the education system would have you believe that monopolies are a danger. Yet there is no history or evidence to support that at all. And plenty of evidence to the contrary.
To be prosperous, you have to have discernment. Question what you read and hear. Analyze why the herd thinks the way it does. And think differently!
-RG
Subscribe to Randy’s Blog via Email
I love you man! 🙂 You make such a big difference in my life by just writing these simple intellectually stimulating prosperity blogs and you don't know it. Viva prosperidad!!!
I got mentioned in Randy's Blog! Cool.
Now i have to punish you for it 🙂
I happen to agree with you about Microsoft- I think they did a GREAT thing, and continue to. My life is BETTER because of what Microsoft has done, and they deserve all the money they make for doing it.
And the competition is only competive because of REGULATION.
If Microsoft had none, they could simply BLOCK any site that had anything negative to say, or any possible competitor from using it's browser. They could also make joint-ventures with certain sites, and make sure the only sites you see are part of their network. Then you would never have found out about Firerfox!
Just check on the ruling about "Gator"- a program that almost did just what I'm talking about.
And Apple would have sold-out to Microsoft a few years ago had they been allowed to. And ANY company going public would sell it's shares the next day if not for regulation.
Again, I believe in free-ISH enterprise. I agree with just about everything you were saying, except that you're speaking in absolutes- like the "free market solves everything" talk.
"Communism" works on paper, but not in reality.
"Capitalism" works on paper, but not in reality.
You're right in that a lot of people begrudge Microsoft for doing "too well", and that's wrong too. I'm just saying that there comes a time when they CAN get "too big", and we no longer have that "free market" in existence.
When I first heard that the Best grossing baseball teams had to give money to the worst grossing teams, I thought that was crazy communist taxation. Then it was explained that if they didn't do that, there would be no baseball after a few seasons, because only one team would afford all the best players, it made sense.
We all want to see good games!
By the way, nice job on that DVD last night.
Here here Randy! I'm so pleased you put all that straight as I found some of those comments very irritating and unenlightened.
Bones could you lighten up on the swearing? You make your points quite clearly enough without it, I promise.
I've been reading Randy's Rants for years but didn't realise all the real fun was happening here now you're a blogger!!
Thanks so much for sharing.
Rachel
Amen. The long term effect of our government bailouts (socialism) scare me...why does the herd continue to buy the idea that the government is the solution? I guess it's the "Money for nothing, chics for free, I want my MTV" mentality.
As a general rule the bigger a company grows the slower they are to introduce new innovations or react to new competition. It gets easier and easier for a new "little guy" to get in there and have competitive advantage. Potential problem takes care of itself, all by itself.
Bones, you seem like a great guy so please don't take it as a sign of disrespect when I say that "even your false premises have false premisis."
You wrote: And the competition is only competive because of REGULATION. If Microsoft had none, they could simply BLOCK any site that had anything negative to say, or any possible competitor from using it’s browser.
----
BOB: Only until someone else comes along and sells the public - little by little through early adapters and then the masses - by coming up with something different that the consumers want more. Remember, government does have a legitimate function; to protect its citizenry from force/fraud. So, unless Microsoft tries to hire goons to keep you from buying what you choose, they are powerless to do anything about it. And, if government does their job, they will protect you from those goons. In fact, the only thing that will generally keep the public from buying what they want is due to the "monopoly bought by the huge corporation" through their highly-paid lobbyists, who buy the politicians who make the laws in their favor. Does that make sense?
-----
You wrote: They could also make joint-ventures with certain sites, and make sure the only sites you see are part of their network. Then you would never have found out about Firerfox!
-----
BOB: They could make JV deals with anyone and any company they wanted, just like you can. And, while it might be temporarily more difficult for the consumer, it will only be until someone comes along with something more desireble, as in the above example. As Randy mentioned, there are college kids in their rooms right with empty pizza boxes figuring out how to do that right now.
-----
You wrote: Just check on the ruling about “Gator”- a program that almost did just what I’m talking about.
And Apple would have sold-out to Microsoft a few years ago had they been allowed to. And ANY company going public would sell it’s shares the next day if not for regulation.
-----
BOB: I'm ignorant on this subject so not qualified to say. I'll bet my above comments hold true, however. Remember, Bones, capitalism does NOT equal utopia . . . but it ALWAYS works better than socialism.
------
Again, I believe in free-ISH enterprise. I agree with just about everything you were saying, except that you’re speaking in absolutes- like the “free market solves everything” talk.
-----
BOB: It's not that it "solves" everything. But it does solve anything better than the socialistic alternative.
-----
You wrote: You’re right in that a lot of people begrudge Microsoft for doing “too well”, and that’s wrong too. I’m just saying that there comes a time when they CAN get “too big”, and we no longer have that “free market” in existence.
-----
BOB: Has never happened in our history. If you look through every example of a monopoly in our country or any other country, you'll see that it was always one of the three things Randy quoted me as saying in the first paragraph, and it is always a result of government intervention.
-----
You wrote: When I first heard that the Best grossing baseball teams had to give money to the worst grossing teams, I thought that was crazy communist taxation. Then it was explained that if they didn’t do that, there would be no baseball after a few seasons, because only one team would afford all the best players, it made sense.
We all want to see good games!
-----
Bob: Major Leage Baseball is a private sector enterprise and, as such, they have a perfect right to make these kinds of rules. What would be wrong would be for government to have insisted on their doing this.
Glenn's comment actually summed it up perfectly, and much more succinctly than I did.
I hope you don't mind my commentary on your comments. Again, no disrespect meant.
Great Post Rg.
I want my MTV, get back to playing the music and videos. Whether they made any sense or not, they were the idea generators that gave us places like YouTube, and Google, and streaming video.
What the government needs to regulate is the idiocy called reality TV. If there is a monopoly they need to regulate and disintegrate it is the dumbing down of Society.
But if they did that they would be discovered for the frauds and fortune stealers most politicans seem to be. So I'm with Randy, sit at the feet of the great Bill Gates and drink from his overflowing cup of wisdom and wealth.
Live Long and Prosper! Nanoo Nanoo
Gary McElwain
Here's an example I heard a long time ago on what socialism and 'spreading the wealth' can cause. A college professor who emigrated from the Soviet Union to the US and was teaching an economics class. The students were all gung ho about socialism and the assumed benefits to the downtrodden. He gave them an exam and when he graded the exams put their actual grade in tiny script on the back of the exam. He then figured the overall average grade for the class and put that grade on the front of the exam. Imagine the shock of the students who knew they were the high performers and got the same grade as the low performers. The teacher told them their real grade was on the back, but what would be on the front would happen if the authorities penalized the best for the sake of the worst.
Randy, I appreciate your advocacy of the free market. However, in my opinion your analogy is flawed, and it's the same flaw that's gotten us to where our economy is today.
"Suppose Tony Robbins and I are doing a seminar on the same weekend, both are in Chicago."
Since neither of you controls Chicago - that's what the basic nature of the Windows software is at this point, since Steve Jobs opted to pursue profit margins instead of market share, and Linux is still struggling to gain a grip in the consumer market - neither of you is Microsoft.
Now, let's say the City of Chicago had a vested interest in Tony Robbins, so they decided to throw in a free venue, parking and advertising. Any vendor - including advertising entities and outlets - who does business with Chicago but chooses to do business with Randy Gage is punished in their future dealings with the City. And then Tony steals content from your CD and incorporates it into his offering, which he gives away for free.
Now. Who're you gonna go see? Tony Robbins or Randy Gage?
Who's even going to be seen in the public eye? Tony Robbins or Randy Gage?
Who has an unfair advantage? Tony Robbins or Randy Gage?
The City is the operating system - analagous to Microsoft - Tony Robbins is the Explorer Browser... and you are... Netscape, Opera, FireFox, Linux, Mac OS, etc.
Corporations are accorded "personhood" under the law. But they are persons without moral values or ethics, lacking a conscience and with only two imperatives: survive and grow (and grow on a quarterly basis if they're a public company) at all costs.
I wouldn't want one living in my neighborhood.
Unregulated free markets are no better in the long run than Communism. Both of them impede fair competition, which is critical to the free-functioning market.
It wasn't the government rolling the dice with derivatives. It was corporations and individuals. And they weren't playing with their own money. They were playing with investors and taxpayers money. They moved the markets, because in investments there's a herd mentality. One does it and makes money, they all want to do it. The ones who didn't - smaller entities with more conservative and long-term values - have money now.
If Microsoft gained dominance by gaming the system, they may not be a monopoloy, but the barrier to competitors is set so high that they may as well be.
I know you're a huge advocate of ethical behavior. Please don't send out the message that Microsoft, no matter what Bill and Melinda Gates may do with a portion of their money today, is an ethical model for business or an economic model for the future.
No disrespect felt at all- and if cursing bothers you, what on EARTH are you doing on Randy's Blog? 🙂
Pure Capitalism is IMPOSSIBLE people.
Just go look at the definitions and the ideal.
IMPOSSIBLE.
Just like communism is.
They both sound good, look good on paper, but as Gage likes to say "That Dog don't hunt".
"But we've never tried REAL Capitalism" you say: "If we did, it would WORK! It would be Utopia"
That's what they say about Communism: "But we've never tried REAL Communism- If we did, it would WORK! It would be Utopia"
And for the "exam" example- capitalism would say that only the person with the HIGHEST grade would pass, and the rest would have to fail. Is that a great solution?
I get it everyone- you're all scared because when FEAR knocks, logic leaves.
So then, let's see... you're scared when they implement some "socialistic" solutions, and yet, it's the "capitalistic" ones that got us here to begin with, so..... where's YOUR big solution?
Bail 'em out? Maybe- but THEN WHAT??
Let 'em crash? Maybe- but THEN WHAT??
And that's the big question- THEN WHAT?
It's easy to say that "Capitalism says we let 'em crash", but it's not easy to say "Millions of people will be out of work in one day", is it?
So- I heard a Nutso solution- but one that makes some sense to me- instead of bailing them out with 36 Billion (or did I hear they want 60 Billion now?), why not BUY ALL OF GM for what the shares are now-
3 Billion.
That's right- bail them out for 32 Billion, or BUY THEM OUT for 3?
Thoughts?
Buying GM out cannot happen because it makes the most sense. The bailouts are not about what is spun anyway.
Imagine giving $500,000 to every US citizen residing in the US over the age of 18. Approximately 200 million people let's say. That one Trillion dollars is actually $650 billion because everyone will be in the 35% tax bracket. Ever married couple will still have approximately $650,000 to buy down/pay off their mortgage, elimiate credit card debt and still take a cruise.
It will not happen because the credit TAX you now pay would dry up. The red herring that many would spend it frivilously or unwisely... what are they doing now? I suspect had they done the 'bailout' this way the money would end up in the same place it's going now but many, many people would never be able to say they didn't have a chance to make it all come true....
WAKE up. You have that opportunity right now. Cut the cord to your TV and scrap watching the news for just 30 days and go to work.
On you.
On your dreams.
On your future.
Good luck.
Wake up and smell the Zyklon B...
Our "government" isn't in charge or, nor do they have the power to do ANYTHING about our economy...until our un-elected board of directors at our Central Bank (ie the Federal Reserve) tell them what to do.
For an in depth explanation read "The Unseen Hand"
It pains me when people/Americans spend valuable time and energy on that which THEY want you to be focused on...and not the real issue...who THEY are and how THEY operate.
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there's one hacking at the root." HDT
PS There was/is nothing "laissez-faire" about how Milton Friedman's policies have been implemented around the world...unless you consider butchering dissenting humans "hands-off." Ever wonder where the term Economic Hitman came from? Yup, you guessed, the idea of spreading capitalism around the globe.
I'm sorry, did I get off topic?
Reply to CSR: The Unseen Hand = a great book on the currency system...is the next bubble to pop (Dot com - 2001; Housing mkt 2007-8) going to be a currency meltdown? Any thoughts...
Randy,
Amazing blog, as always, thanks for being such an inspiration and example.
Iceburner, your math is wrong. 200million people, at $500k per person is NOT 1 trillion. It's 100 trillion. Small difference, I know, but only about 6 1/2 times the size of our entire national economy.
Bones, you crack me up. I've thought in the past (in my naive youth), why doesn't Gates just buy United Airlines for pocket change (when they were in the crapper...oh, wait, they still are)? My answer is, who in their right mind would blow their hard-earned fortune on a nightmare like that?
Same with the auto companies. Who in the world, having earned a fortune, would risk $3B to buy a nightmare like that and then have to deal with the UAW? Those guys know better, that's why they're staying out of it (as far as we know). The guys at the C Level of the auto companies got their, not through innovation and management savvy, but through politics and croni-ism. That's why they're going out of business. The heads just...aren't...that...smart.
Wordznpic,
You seem to argue against Randy's point, but you are actually supporting his point and not even realizing it.
You wrote:
Now, let’s say the City of Chicago had a vested interest in Tony Robbins, so they decided to throw in a free venue, parking and advertising. Any vendor - including advertising entities and outlets - who does business with Chicago but chooses to do business with Randy Gage is punished in their future dealings with the City. And then Tony steals content from your CD and incorporates it into his offering, which he gives away for free.
So it is the Government's involvement that would create a "Monopoly" for Tony Robbins, not the Free Market. and that is what Randy is saying that the only way to have a monopoly is through Gov't involvement.
Think about it.
I saw the Enron movie yesterday, and the awfull things they did to California (which ended up costing CA $30 BILLION in economic loses), people attribute that to the problems of people becoming too greedy in a FREE market, yet I think the problem was the imbalance of Gvnmt and Free Market.
(according to the movie) California could have taken over the plants and avoid the mess and probably put Enron out of business, but the Federal Government didn't allow it to happen, some fed org FERC, go figure what THEY are supposed to be doing.
So, you always have to look at the big picture, and all the players involved, in a totally FREE market, the consumer is always the boss, so if MSFT would've blocked other websites, in my opinion it would not taken long for consumers to stop using Windows, because we want full access, and we would not tolerate these blockages, don't you think this would've kept MSFT on their toes from making such idiotic moves?...
RG keep it up, great site and great articles,
-Lou
Actually, I'm not, Rasheed. It may appear that way on first blush.
The analogy is that Microsoft, through anticompetitive and in many cases illegal business practices, has so dominated the operating system market that it has actually become a de facto governing entity in the technology market: nothing works on the computer without it for about 85% of the consumer and business PC market. Hence, my analogy likening Microsoft to the city government in Randy's example.
You can't have FAIR competition without regulation. You can have "Chicago Rules" competition: ever heard of Al Capone?
I hope that clarifies my comments.
Also, Rasheed, government involvement is entirely unnecessary to monopoly.
Government can actively foster monopoly, or government inaction can allow monopoly to evolve. One can see this on every continent on the planet. Except maybe Antarctica, where every major government in the world is grubbing for a piece of the action and potential resources.
Genius. And Amen. And thx to Bob Burg for pointing me your way.
You and John Mackey's (Whole Foods CEO) organization connected yet?
check it: http://flowidealism.com
And just stumbled upon this Ayn Rand CLASSIC YouTube video from 1959 as I was writing my PhilosophersNotes on Fountainhead.
me thinks you'll dig it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k
As you said, the intellectuals don't get America.
Keep on shining the light. Stoked I found you.
-bri
I love you man! 🙂 You make such a big difference in my life by just writing these simple intellectually stimulating prosperity blogs and you don't know it. Viva prosperidad!!!
I got mentioned in Randy's Blog! Cool.
Now i have to punish you for it 🙂
I happen to agree with you about Microsoft- I think they did a GREAT thing, and continue to. My life is BETTER because of what Microsoft has done, and they deserve all the money they make for doing it.
And the competition is only competive because of REGULATION.
If Microsoft had none, they could simply BLOCK any site that had anything negative to say, or any possible competitor from using it's browser. They could also make joint-ventures with certain sites, and make sure the only sites you see are part of their network. Then you would never have found out about Firerfox!
Just check on the ruling about "Gator"- a program that almost did just what I'm talking about.
And Apple would have sold-out to Microsoft a few years ago had they been allowed to. And ANY company going public would sell it's shares the next day if not for regulation.
Again, I believe in free-ISH enterprise. I agree with just about everything you were saying, except that you're speaking in absolutes- like the "free market solves everything" talk.
"Communism" works on paper, but not in reality.
"Capitalism" works on paper, but not in reality.
You're right in that a lot of people begrudge Microsoft for doing "too well", and that's wrong too. I'm just saying that there comes a time when they CAN get "too big", and we no longer have that "free market" in existence.
When I first heard that the Best grossing baseball teams had to give money to the worst grossing teams, I thought that was crazy communist taxation. Then it was explained that if they didn't do that, there would be no baseball after a few seasons, because only one team would afford all the best players, it made sense.
We all want to see good games!
By the way, nice job on that DVD last night.
Here here Randy! I'm so pleased you put all that straight as I found some of those comments very irritating and unenlightened.
Bones could you lighten up on the swearing? You make your points quite clearly enough without it, I promise.
I've been reading Randy's Rants for years but didn't realise all the real fun was happening here now you're a blogger!!
Thanks so much for sharing.
Rachel
Amen. The long term effect of our government bailouts (socialism) scare me...why does the herd continue to buy the idea that the government is the solution? I guess it's the "Money for nothing, chics for free, I want my MTV" mentality.
As a general rule the bigger a company grows the slower they are to introduce new innovations or react to new competition. It gets easier and easier for a new "little guy" to get in there and have competitive advantage. Potential problem takes care of itself, all by itself.
Bones, you seem like a great guy so please don't take it as a sign of disrespect when I say that "even your false premises have false premisis."
You wrote: And the competition is only competive because of REGULATION. If Microsoft had none, they could simply BLOCK any site that had anything negative to say, or any possible competitor from using it’s browser.
----
BOB: Only until someone else comes along and sells the public - little by little through early adapters and then the masses - by coming up with something different that the consumers want more. Remember, government does have a legitimate function; to protect its citizenry from force/fraud. So, unless Microsoft tries to hire goons to keep you from buying what you choose, they are powerless to do anything about it. And, if government does their job, they will protect you from those goons. In fact, the only thing that will generally keep the public from buying what they want is due to the "monopoly bought by the huge corporation" through their highly-paid lobbyists, who buy the politicians who make the laws in their favor. Does that make sense?
-----
You wrote: They could also make joint-ventures with certain sites, and make sure the only sites you see are part of their network. Then you would never have found out about Firerfox!
-----
BOB: They could make JV deals with anyone and any company they wanted, just like you can. And, while it might be temporarily more difficult for the consumer, it will only be until someone comes along with something more desireble, as in the above example. As Randy mentioned, there are college kids in their rooms right with empty pizza boxes figuring out how to do that right now.
-----
You wrote: Just check on the ruling about “Gator”- a program that almost did just what I’m talking about.
And Apple would have sold-out to Microsoft a few years ago had they been allowed to. And ANY company going public would sell it’s shares the next day if not for regulation.
-----
BOB: I'm ignorant on this subject so not qualified to say. I'll bet my above comments hold true, however. Remember, Bones, capitalism does NOT equal utopia . . . but it ALWAYS works better than socialism.
------
Again, I believe in free-ISH enterprise. I agree with just about everything you were saying, except that you’re speaking in absolutes- like the “free market solves everything” talk.
-----
BOB: It's not that it "solves" everything. But it does solve anything better than the socialistic alternative.
-----
You wrote: You’re right in that a lot of people begrudge Microsoft for doing “too well”, and that’s wrong too. I’m just saying that there comes a time when they CAN get “too big”, and we no longer have that “free market” in existence.
-----
BOB: Has never happened in our history. If you look through every example of a monopoly in our country or any other country, you'll see that it was always one of the three things Randy quoted me as saying in the first paragraph, and it is always a result of government intervention.
-----
You wrote: When I first heard that the Best grossing baseball teams had to give money to the worst grossing teams, I thought that was crazy communist taxation. Then it was explained that if they didn’t do that, there would be no baseball after a few seasons, because only one team would afford all the best players, it made sense.
We all want to see good games!
-----
Bob: Major Leage Baseball is a private sector enterprise and, as such, they have a perfect right to make these kinds of rules. What would be wrong would be for government to have insisted on their doing this.
Glenn's comment actually summed it up perfectly, and much more succinctly than I did.
I hope you don't mind my commentary on your comments. Again, no disrespect meant.
Great Post Rg.
I want my MTV, get back to playing the music and videos. Whether they made any sense or not, they were the idea generators that gave us places like YouTube, and Google, and streaming video.
What the government needs to regulate is the idiocy called reality TV. If there is a monopoly they need to regulate and disintegrate it is the dumbing down of Society.
But if they did that they would be discovered for the frauds and fortune stealers most politicans seem to be. So I'm with Randy, sit at the feet of the great Bill Gates and drink from his overflowing cup of wisdom and wealth.
Live Long and Prosper! Nanoo Nanoo
Gary McElwain
Here's an example I heard a long time ago on what socialism and 'spreading the wealth' can cause. A college professor who emigrated from the Soviet Union to the US and was teaching an economics class. The students were all gung ho about socialism and the assumed benefits to the downtrodden. He gave them an exam and when he graded the exams put their actual grade in tiny script on the back of the exam. He then figured the overall average grade for the class and put that grade on the front of the exam. Imagine the shock of the students who knew they were the high performers and got the same grade as the low performers. The teacher told them their real grade was on the back, but what would be on the front would happen if the authorities penalized the best for the sake of the worst.
Randy, I appreciate your advocacy of the free market. However, in my opinion your analogy is flawed, and it's the same flaw that's gotten us to where our economy is today.
"Suppose Tony Robbins and I are doing a seminar on the same weekend, both are in Chicago."
Since neither of you controls Chicago - that's what the basic nature of the Windows software is at this point, since Steve Jobs opted to pursue profit margins instead of market share, and Linux is still struggling to gain a grip in the consumer market - neither of you is Microsoft.
Now, let's say the City of Chicago had a vested interest in Tony Robbins, so they decided to throw in a free venue, parking and advertising. Any vendor - including advertising entities and outlets - who does business with Chicago but chooses to do business with Randy Gage is punished in their future dealings with the City. And then Tony steals content from your CD and incorporates it into his offering, which he gives away for free.
Now. Who're you gonna go see? Tony Robbins or Randy Gage?
Who's even going to be seen in the public eye? Tony Robbins or Randy Gage?
Who has an unfair advantage? Tony Robbins or Randy Gage?
The City is the operating system - analagous to Microsoft - Tony Robbins is the Explorer Browser... and you are... Netscape, Opera, FireFox, Linux, Mac OS, etc.
Corporations are accorded "personhood" under the law. But they are persons without moral values or ethics, lacking a conscience and with only two imperatives: survive and grow (and grow on a quarterly basis if they're a public company) at all costs.
I wouldn't want one living in my neighborhood.
Unregulated free markets are no better in the long run than Communism. Both of them impede fair competition, which is critical to the free-functioning market.
It wasn't the government rolling the dice with derivatives. It was corporations and individuals. And they weren't playing with their own money. They were playing with investors and taxpayers money. They moved the markets, because in investments there's a herd mentality. One does it and makes money, they all want to do it. The ones who didn't - smaller entities with more conservative and long-term values - have money now.
If Microsoft gained dominance by gaming the system, they may not be a monopoloy, but the barrier to competitors is set so high that they may as well be.
I know you're a huge advocate of ethical behavior. Please don't send out the message that Microsoft, no matter what Bill and Melinda Gates may do with a portion of their money today, is an ethical model for business or an economic model for the future.
No disrespect felt at all- and if cursing bothers you, what on EARTH are you doing on Randy's Blog? 🙂
Pure Capitalism is IMPOSSIBLE people.
Just go look at the definitions and the ideal.
IMPOSSIBLE.
Just like communism is.
They both sound good, look good on paper, but as Gage likes to say "That Dog don't hunt".
"But we've never tried REAL Capitalism" you say: "If we did, it would WORK! It would be Utopia"
That's what they say about Communism: "But we've never tried REAL Communism- If we did, it would WORK! It would be Utopia"
And for the "exam" example- capitalism would say that only the person with the HIGHEST grade would pass, and the rest would have to fail. Is that a great solution?
I get it everyone- you're all scared because when FEAR knocks, logic leaves.
So then, let's see... you're scared when they implement some "socialistic" solutions, and yet, it's the "capitalistic" ones that got us here to begin with, so..... where's YOUR big solution?
Bail 'em out? Maybe- but THEN WHAT??
Let 'em crash? Maybe- but THEN WHAT??
And that's the big question- THEN WHAT?
It's easy to say that "Capitalism says we let 'em crash", but it's not easy to say "Millions of people will be out of work in one day", is it?
So- I heard a Nutso solution- but one that makes some sense to me- instead of bailing them out with 36 Billion (or did I hear they want 60 Billion now?), why not BUY ALL OF GM for what the shares are now-
3 Billion.
That's right- bail them out for 32 Billion, or BUY THEM OUT for 3?
Thoughts?
Buying GM out cannot happen because it makes the most sense. The bailouts are not about what is spun anyway.
Imagine giving $500,000 to every US citizen residing in the US over the age of 18. Approximately 200 million people let's say. That one Trillion dollars is actually $650 billion because everyone will be in the 35% tax bracket. Ever married couple will still have approximately $650,000 to buy down/pay off their mortgage, elimiate credit card debt and still take a cruise.
It will not happen because the credit TAX you now pay would dry up. The red herring that many would spend it frivilously or unwisely... what are they doing now? I suspect had they done the 'bailout' this way the money would end up in the same place it's going now but many, many people would never be able to say they didn't have a chance to make it all come true....
WAKE up. You have that opportunity right now. Cut the cord to your TV and scrap watching the news for just 30 days and go to work.
On you.
On your dreams.
On your future.
Good luck.
Wake up and smell the Zyklon B...
Our "government" isn't in charge or, nor do they have the power to do ANYTHING about our economy...until our un-elected board of directors at our Central Bank (ie the Federal Reserve) tell them what to do.
For an in depth explanation read "The Unseen Hand"
It pains me when people/Americans spend valuable time and energy on that which THEY want you to be focused on...and not the real issue...who THEY are and how THEY operate.
"For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there's one hacking at the root." HDT
PS There was/is nothing "laissez-faire" about how Milton Friedman's policies have been implemented around the world...unless you consider butchering dissenting humans "hands-off." Ever wonder where the term Economic Hitman came from? Yup, you guessed, the idea of spreading capitalism around the globe.
I'm sorry, did I get off topic?
Reply to CSR: The Unseen Hand = a great book on the currency system...is the next bubble to pop (Dot com - 2001; Housing mkt 2007-8) going to be a currency meltdown? Any thoughts...
Randy,
Amazing blog, as always, thanks for being such an inspiration and example.
Iceburner, your math is wrong. 200million people, at $500k per person is NOT 1 trillion. It's 100 trillion. Small difference, I know, but only about 6 1/2 times the size of our entire national economy.
Bones, you crack me up. I've thought in the past (in my naive youth), why doesn't Gates just buy United Airlines for pocket change (when they were in the crapper...oh, wait, they still are)? My answer is, who in their right mind would blow their hard-earned fortune on a nightmare like that?
Same with the auto companies. Who in the world, having earned a fortune, would risk $3B to buy a nightmare like that and then have to deal with the UAW? Those guys know better, that's why they're staying out of it (as far as we know). The guys at the C Level of the auto companies got their, not through innovation and management savvy, but through politics and croni-ism. That's why they're going out of business. The heads just...aren't...that...smart.
Wordznpic,
You seem to argue against Randy's point, but you are actually supporting his point and not even realizing it.
You wrote:
Now, let’s say the City of Chicago had a vested interest in Tony Robbins, so they decided to throw in a free venue, parking and advertising. Any vendor - including advertising entities and outlets - who does business with Chicago but chooses to do business with Randy Gage is punished in their future dealings with the City. And then Tony steals content from your CD and incorporates it into his offering, which he gives away for free.
So it is the Government's involvement that would create a "Monopoly" for Tony Robbins, not the Free Market. and that is what Randy is saying that the only way to have a monopoly is through Gov't involvement.
Think about it.
I saw the Enron movie yesterday, and the awfull things they did to California (which ended up costing CA $30 BILLION in economic loses), people attribute that to the problems of people becoming too greedy in a FREE market, yet I think the problem was the imbalance of Gvnmt and Free Market.
(according to the movie) California could have taken over the plants and avoid the mess and probably put Enron out of business, but the Federal Government didn't allow it to happen, some fed org FERC, go figure what THEY are supposed to be doing.
So, you always have to look at the big picture, and all the players involved, in a totally FREE market, the consumer is always the boss, so if MSFT would've blocked other websites, in my opinion it would not taken long for consumers to stop using Windows, because we want full access, and we would not tolerate these blockages, don't you think this would've kept MSFT on their toes from making such idiotic moves?...
RG keep it up, great site and great articles,
-Lou
Actually, I'm not, Rasheed. It may appear that way on first blush.
The analogy is that Microsoft, through anticompetitive and in many cases illegal business practices, has so dominated the operating system market that it has actually become a de facto governing entity in the technology market: nothing works on the computer without it for about 85% of the consumer and business PC market. Hence, my analogy likening Microsoft to the city government in Randy's example.
You can't have FAIR competition without regulation. You can have "Chicago Rules" competition: ever heard of Al Capone?
I hope that clarifies my comments.
Also, Rasheed, government involvement is entirely unnecessary to monopoly.
Government can actively foster monopoly, or government inaction can allow monopoly to evolve. One can see this on every continent on the planet. Except maybe Antarctica, where every major government in the world is grubbing for a piece of the action and potential resources.
Genius. And Amen. And thx to Bob Burg for pointing me your way.
You and John Mackey's (Whole Foods CEO) organization connected yet?
check it: http://flowidealism.com
And just stumbled upon this Ayn Rand CLASSIC YouTube video from 1959 as I was writing my PhilosophersNotes on Fountainhead.
me thinks you'll dig it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k
As you said, the intellectuals don't get America.
Keep on shining the light. Stoked I found you.
-bri