Stones Cry Out

Don't blame it on "capitalism." Assign the blame where it belongs: Bill Gates.

Microsoft and Bill Gates are not alone. Yahoo operates in China, and Google is about to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4536473.stm

There are not a lot of clean hands to turn to.

Second the motion.

What I'm saying is that where "capitalism" and "freedom" collide, the free-market is not always the friend of freedom. The "rational" business choice is to do whatever it takes to get into the Chinese market. However, if the US consumer had enough options to "choose" not to patronize Microsoft products, Bill Gates and crew may have thought twice. The fact is, Gates and crew know the American consumer can't hurt them, so they are free to wheel and deal on the global market - even if that means they are enabling the suppression of free speech.

The "market" has failed because there are not enough viable alternatives to Microsoft. When markets fail, it is perfectly legitimate for the government to intervene. I would support the government sanctioning Microsoft by whatever means necessary to make them "pay" for dealing with China in this way. Since Americans (and the American economy) don't have a viable alternative to Microsoft, we have no real market avenue for expressing out dissatisfaction. The government provides the only means of expressing collective dissatisfaction.

No viable alternative to Microsoft products? In what arena? Operating systems? There's Apple and Linux.

I have two Macs at home. But that's just a tiny share of the world. The "real world" is the business world. The corporate world. They are dominated by PCs and Microsoft products.

In recent years I have watched the majority of our Word Perfect using clients succumb to the machine and switch to Word. Consequently, we have not renewed our license with Corel. My dad is CTO of a software firm that specializes in SCADA systems and is occasionally asked why he doesn't write software for OSX. The reply is simple: He'd be out of business because the "real world" uses Windows.

What I'm saying is that for Microsoft to lose its grip on the market, corporate America will have to send a message to Microsoft that it does not want to use its products. Us peon Americans do not matter.

Corporate America will not send a message because it lacks the incentive to do so. Why should they do something that will only cost them? For a boycott of Microsoft products to work, you have to boycott the corporations that use Microsoft products. That's impossible. That is why the market has failed and the government has a legitimate right to intervene.

Those who don't agree, chant with me: Yeah Mammon!

As a member of the legal world, I can represent that a good portion of the legal market still uses WordPerfect. However, many have switched to Word, as our clients prefer it. (I actually prefer Word, for reasons I won't bore you with here.)

But why should the corporate world say to Microsoft that it is no longer going to use its products. Who else is selling? That is, who is coming to the corporate world and saying, look at our products -- we can do everything you need and want at a price you're willing to pay? Apple isn't. The Linux desktop simply isn't there yet.

Look, I am not defending Microsoft's doing business under the repressive policies of the Chinese government.

But I don't see the support for your conclusion that the market has "failed." The market has merely chosen differently than you would.

"Those who don't agree, chant with me: Yeah Mammon!"

You're indulging in the fallacy of the excluded middle. That's really beneath you.

Kent, I was largely joking.

Jason, I learned in college that market theory rested on several assumptions, that if violated, lead to market failure. Two of these assumptions are: 1) Large number of sellers; and 2) Consumers have access to full information.

Most consumers will probably never learn about Microsoft's dealings with China or how they conduct business in America. Therefore, consumers do not have full information as every purchase is not "fully" informed. For a market to truly make a choice, the individual choices within that market need to be fully informed.

Assume for a moment that every individual choice was fully informed. The market still fails because there are not a large number of sellers marketing similar products. Without viable alternatives in the market, fully informed consumers cannot register alternate choices.

Capitalism and markets are certainly better than all the alternatives. However, it is rather naïve to think that these systems are flawless. The market can only make a "choice" under ideal circumstances. Rarely, if ever, are the conditions for a perfect market in market theory satisfied.

Where there is market failure, the government has a legitimate right to intervene. Where the government has a right to intervene, it can do so inefficiently and cause additional market failure. These issues are not easy to resolve.