It is not only unnecessary for the government to intervene to maintain a free market, it is extremely wrong. Intervention by any outside party in corporate matters is inappropriate and basically contradicts the meaning of a free market.
There are some positive effects government intervention could produce. These pros are, in fact, few, and questionable, at that. Take for instance, the situation with Microsoft. The government is sticking its nose in where it doesn't belong. Let's try and get passed that point for a moment and examine the good that could come out of government intervention.
One possible pro to this intervention is that it would most likely create a more equal market (not "fair market.") The term "fair market" is like an oxymoron in this case because basically the government is saying, "Hi, we're the United States government and we're sorry but we cannot let you continue to run your business. Although you have spent your life working to improve and simplify the computer industry, we simply feel you have made too much money." How is this in any way fair? In some people's eyes it is for the best of the economy and the computer industry, but it is definitely not fair. For the government to break down Microsoft, a multi-billion dollar company would be ridiculous. True, maybe the market would be more equal. No more mammoth company, just moderately sized companies. This could be a pro. But who is the government to decide that a company is too large? And if so where is the line drawnone billiontwo billiontwenty billion?
One other possible pro to government intervention in the Microsoft case would be that smaller, newer companies would have a "fairer" shot at being recognized. Once again, the term "fair" is open to discussion. What is considered to be fair to some can be completely unfair to others. Smaller computer companies would undoubtedly have a better chance at becoming popular. However, people are free to do whatever they want. No one forces people to use Microsoft applications. They are simply put, the most user-friendly, simple but efficient programs that happen to be compatible with a great deal of PCs. Microsoft was that small, unknown company once too. They had no help from the government in their quest for fame and fortune, why should other companies?
The few pros to government intervention are arguable. Now let us discuss the cons to...
... middle of paper ...
...what our government basically saying.
Microsoft may well be a monopoly. It is a huge powerhouse corporation that can afford to give its products away for dirt cheap to control the market. There are, however other options. There are other programs for IBM computers and there is also the option of using a Macintosh system. There are other programs that are good, and the new Macintosh computers have proven to be faster than the latest Pentiums. Why, then? Why is Microsoft the leader? The answer is Bill Gate's work is done well. It is user friendly, innovative and works with the majority of PCs. No other company's product is used more widespread than Bill Gates. Even the prosecutors putting him on trial probably use his programs. He should be left alone. He has done no one any harm. He makes life easier for the non computer literate, and has made thousands of employees and shareholders millionaires. He has used fair business practices and started from nothing.
Even if Microsoft is a monopoly, it will not end the free market system. If anything, the government will ruin it. A free market should mean it is free of everything excluding commerce, including government intervention.
At just twenty years old, Bill Gates cofounded Microsoft with his childhood friend Paul Allen. He is now the richest man in the world with over $85.2 billion to his name. So why did Microsoft end up being way more successful than any computer program like it? The answer is because of the free enterprise system, and competition. Gate's product was considered new and innovative at the time, which made customers want to try it out.
By 1993 Microsoft's windows computer programming function became the most widely used operating system in the world. When Microsoft was still an idea, Bill Gates led Apple to believe he would help them succeed in creating the best computer programming systems in the nation, however, Gates left it unknown to Apple he planned to release his own software. Gates took notes and allowed Apple to release the software he helped them to create. Then shortly after, Microsoft introduced windows. Apple claimed Gates had stolen their ideas, as windows looked surprisingly similar to Apple's version. Gates claimed he used his own ideas because it was his own that made Apple's renowned software. As Microsoft was leading in the world, Apple threatened Microsofts position in the world of technological advances by introducing a new software program that could potentially take Microsoft's top spot in the market away from them. Gates quickly said that he had created a new software that was set to release also, although he had no idea of new software at the time and made the excuse to possibly buy himself a bit of time. About eight months later, Microsoft released the new software program, as bill gates had proclaimed, retaining the top spot in the market. Microsoft's expansion today has reached every technological realm possible. Occluded in the newest developments are
Evans, D. S. (2002). Microsoft, antitrust and the new economy: selected essays. New York, NY: Springer.
Cases in which the death penalty is gone after are more expensive and take more time to solve than non capital cases. “Even when a trial wasn’t necessary, those cases where the death penalty was sought still cost about twice as much as those where death was not sought” (Erb 1). The added money is due to legal representation, enhanced security for death row, and the costs it takes to go through the motions of a trial such as this. "The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate” (The Death Penalty 8). With California’s current death row (670) this would generate $63.3 million dollars per year. This is important because it shows factual stats about how much these cases cost vs regular cases and how much money could be saved if the death penalty was eliminated. These statistics show my thesis is correct because the high costs are one of the reasons why the death penalty might be
There are over sixty offenses in the United States of America that can be punishable by receiving the death penalty (What is..., 1). However, many individuals believe that the death penalty is an inadequate source of punishment for any crime no matter how severe it is. The fact remains, however, that the death penalty is one of the most ideal forms of punishment. There are other individuals who agree with the idea that capital punishment is the best form of punishment. In fact, some of these individuals believe that this should be the only form of punishment.
Nobody in full cognition woke up in this morning and said, “ I’m gonna go run over little Timmy with my car.” No American in their right cognition woke up and said, “ I’m gonna go shoot little Susie with my Mossberg 243 today.” If little Timmy gets hit with a car, some will argue the driver needs his/her license taken away or that man/woman needs to go to prison. The argument that will come to play with little Susie though will be that this is exactly why we need gun control. Both rights have rules and regulations, before doing either. A person must pass a written test of 25 questions over their state of residence’s road regulations, drive with a licensed 21 year old for 6 months, then pass a driving skills test which takes place with a police officer. To purchase a gun you must have a legal form of identification, perhaps a driver 's license, be 18 years of age (long rifle/shotgun) 21 years (handgun), pass a federal background check (or have a concealed carry license) before you receive the gun. We know who owns guns, we know their address, hair color, and every personal trait they have if a crime is committed with their firearm we can find them and perform
Something to also consider is although we have many gun laws, not all are enforced. For instance, the Brady Bill gets easily nullified. This bill enforces a waiting period and a background check to buy a firearm. One example of the bill being nullified is, some states nearly nullify the federal law by removing individuals from the NCIS list, which is a list that prohibits certain people from buying weapons if they have completed their sentence. Another way the law is nullified, is buying a firearm through an unregulated forum. Through an unregulated forum a person, like Adam Lanza, is able to avoid background checks, waiting periods, and other reasons. (Record, and Gostin 568)
Should our economy be run by a doctrine that was made popular by a group of French writers called physiocrats in the mid-1700s? This doctrine is called laissez-faire and it literally means to let or allow to do(The Family Education Network). It is a theory of economic policy which states that government generally should not interfere with decisions made in an open competitive market. These decisions include policies such as setting prices and wages. According to the doctrine of laissez-faire, workers are most productive and a nation's economy functions most efficiently when people can pursue their own economic interest freely. The economy of the United States is no where close to being a laissez-faire system. In fact, government spending and intervention in the economic sector has ballooned. According to the Federal Money Retriever, in 1998 alone, the government spent over $37,733,526,000 in agricultural commodities, loans, marketing, and stabilization. The role of government has grown to a point where the benefits of government intervention are far outweighed by the negative effects on the economy as a whole.
By law a monopoly is not allowed to exist in the US. It has been long debated whether Microsoft is a monopoly or not? Among other charges Microsoft was charged with "monopolizing the computer operating system market, integrating the Internet Explorer web browser into the operating system in an attempt to eliminate competition from Netscape, and using its market power to form anticompetitive agreements with producers of related goods" (SWLearning).
“His agreements with hardware manufacturers have often served to prevent the success of rival products even when they are already on the market and Microsoft versions have yet to be completed. In 1995, the development of Windows 95, a revolutionary operating system, drove hardware manufacturers to produce computers with more memory and more hard disk space. Microsoft thus effectively compelled the entire computer industry to follow its lead. Such practices involved Gates and Microsoft in legal struggles over alleged anticompetitive practices and copyright infringement throughout the 1990s”(McGuire 1). With their more advanced operating systems they had to have more advanced computers that can run them but the other companies couldn't update their operating system as fast.
I believe that Microsoft has the best intensions for society, because they are constantly developing the software market into a more competitive and challenging industry. Microsoft’s success as a company is partly due to its commitment to making the best product possible and strategic business practices. The first reason Microsoft is not a monopoly is because of the standardized quality of its OS. Second is the intelligent business practices Microsoft has engaged in through many of its business partners. The legal issues of the alleged antitrust accusations from the department of justice are just totally overrated.
All nations can get the benefits of free trade by being specialized in producing goods they have a comparative advantage and then trade them with goods produced by other nations in the world. This is evidenced by comparative advantage theory. Trade depends on many factors, country's history, institution, size and. geographical position and many more. Also, the countries put trade barriers for the exchange of their goods and services with other nations in order to protect their own company from foreign competition, or to protect consumers from undesirable products, or sometimes it may be inadvertent.
You will typically find just as many pros as you do cons, adding to the already confusing and feverish debate. In the states that still allow capital punishment, criminals are not deterred by the possibility of being sentenced to death. Though there are those who believe capital punishment is worth every penny, the expenses incurred from housing and legal processes make life without parole a more economical alternative. Perhaps the greatest issue when examining the pros and cons associated with the death penalty is the possibility of an innocent person being executed. We can look to DNA to continue to exonerate the falsely accused, but relying on it solely is not an option. While the multitudinous collection of pros and cons will always be intensely debated, both sides agree that condemning someone to death is not taken lightly. It 's a ponderous decision and must be considered extensively. In the words of Winston Churchill, "the price of greatness is
Generally speaking governments intervene in the market for two main reasons: "social efficiency and equity". [1] One does not expect to see a government intervene in the economy to favor a firm, or because the government would profit from such an intervention in the way a firm sees profit (except maybe voters positive perception of the intervention).
Microsoft is the leading and the largest Software Company in the world. Found by William Gates and Paul Allen in 1975 Microsoft has grown and become a multibillion company in only ten years. It all started with a great vision – “a computer on every desk and every home” - that seemed almost impossible at the time. Now Microsoft has over 44,000 employees in 60 countries, net income of $3.45 billion and revenue of 11.36 billion. Company dramatic growth and success was driven by development and marketing of operational systems and personal productivity applications software.