The Corporation is in Serious Trouble

[Cartman]

Your elitism is showing.

Perhaps, but I am in good company as Mr. Harper, Mr. Martin, Mr. Layton, and any other leader would not endorse your idea to let corporations regulate themselves in entirety. Eliminating this government function (accreditation process) would lead to fraud and chaos.

Why else did Mr Harper attend and teach at the U of C rather than a non-accredited institution? Elitism or because the institution is reputable?

[Hugo]

Perhaps, but I am in good company as Mr. Harper, Mr. Martin, Mr. Layton, and any other leader would not endorse your idea to let corporations regulate themselves in entirety.

Good. I am happy that I am not in the company of socialists like Harper, Martin and Layton. Their ideas are backward-thinking anyway.

Why else did Mr Harper attend and teach at the U of C rather than a non-accredited institution? Elitism or because the institution is reputable?

Maybe because he had a career in mind, and the Canadian political climate is such that a U of C teacher is more respected.

[The Terrible Sweal]

But look, here is the very nub ... The contingency I emphasized in quoting you is not taken into account in your conclusion.

I don't see how. You will have to explain how you see that in more detail.

I am saying that your own formulation includes the recognition that one participant may take unfair advantage of another, but your conclusion ignores the need to address that problem.

No, what I am saying is that the theory is correct: government/state intervention may sometimes be useful in improving market efficiency....

...The theory of which you speak, like the theory of a non-heliocentric solar system, does not fit the empirical facts and has never been proven true. In fact, it has been repeatedly proven wrong. Therefore, the theory is wrong.

The theory has been proven right. Persisently.

[Hugo]

The theory has been proven right. Persisently.

The theory was proven wrong in 1974 when the advent of stagflation proved Keynesian economics wrong, completely refuting his central claim that high unemployment and high inflation could never occur at the same time.

Like I said, a theory that doesn't fit the facts is wrong.

I am saying that your own formulation includes the recognition that one participant may take unfair advantage of another, but your conclusion ignores the need to address that problem.

No, it does not. Any policy that directly violates the rights of the competitor is unfair. In the race, that would be tripping him. In business, it would be theft of his capital. Any policy that directly affects only you is fair. In the race, that would be sprinting harder. In business, it would be lowering your prices.

The difference between our ideas stems from the differences in the way we view unfair advantages. In my view, an unfair advantage is only gained when one party violates the fundamental rights of another party - the right to life, the right to property, the right to free speech etc. In yours, an unfair advantage is gained when one party tries harder than the other party.

Furthermore, I have only violated your rights when I am the sole agent of violation. If I steal your property, then I am the sole agent and I have violated your rights. If we are competing in business and I slash my prices, and you go bankrupt, I am not the sole agent - all I did was change my own circumstances without directly changing yours. Therefore, your rights remain intact.

[idealisttotheend]

No, it does not. Any policy that directly violates the rights of the competitor is unfair. In the race, that would be tripping him. In business, it would be theft of his capital. Any policy that directly affects only you is fair. In the race, that would be sprinting harder. In business, it would be lowering your prices.

This is one of those things that are good in theory but bad in practicality. Take any policy by government that tries to stop large buisness entities from praying on small entities, (anti-trust, anti-dumping, tax policies that are favourable to small buisness).

A. There is no capitalist economic theory in existance that does not recognize that competition is beneficial and necessary to the capitalist system working, the more competition the better.

B. Everyone knows that the bigger you are the more the advantages pile up. Costs to manufacture, warehouse and retail are universally lower per unit the more units you produce/sell. Also, once you are large enough you exert more pressure over the price of the supplies you wish to obtain than the person providing the supplies, pushing prices down. This means a larger entity )with reasonably competant mandagement) will always outsell a smaller entity by a margin roughly equal to the size difference between the two. Costs like wages etc. will inevitably drop to the lowest cost entity within a short time. (Are there exceptions to this rule, sure, but they are few and far between and are generally when consumers are not making 'rational' choices as the economics textbook says they should)

C. Therefore the natural result of unregulated capitalism is very large entities controlling large swaths of every market sector. (Trade associations between companies also enhance cooperation between seemingly seperate companies in a buisness sector, reduing competion further. These associations are tolerated more often in periods of weak government control.)

D. These results eventually lead to both greatly reduced competition and prices being set on the supply side instead of the demand side (companies with few competitiors can set prices where they wish knowing the need will outweigh people's unhappiness with the price). Since capitalism only works with adequet competition, unregulated capitalism will eventually destroy capitalism in favour of a semi-fascist oligharchy controlling what is sold to whom for what price, (say Microsoft, insurance companies etc.)

The government must make regulations to promote competition even if it doesn't seem that one competitior in the 'race' is directly harming the other.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The theory has been proven right. Persisently.

The theory was proven wrong in 1974 when the advent of stagflation proved Keynesian economics wrong, completely refuting his central claim that high unemployment and high inflation could never occur at the same time.

Keynsian macroeconomics is not the theory I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about market microeconomics, particularly relating to transaction costs and information.

In this area there is strong evidence in favor of the utility of (appropriate) regulation to improve efficiency.

I am saying that your own formulation includes the recognition that one participant may take unfair advantage of another, but your conclusion ignores the need to address that problem.

No, it does not. Any policy that directly violates the rights of the competitor is unfair. In the race, that would be tripping him. In business, it would be theft of his capital. Any policy that directly affects only you is fair. In the race, that would be sprinting harder. In business, it would be lowering your prices.

So you acknowledge the necessity of at least that standard. Now, who promulgates and enforces these rules?

The difference between our ideas stems from the differences in the way we view unfair advantages. In my view, an unfair advantage is only gained when one party violates the fundamental rights of another party - the right to life, the right to property, the right to free speech etc. In yours, an unfair advantage is gained when one party tries harder than the other party.

What on earth ever makes you think that utter nonsense? I don't believe anything of the sort! My position stands firmly on the same understanding of unfair as yours: "unfair advantage is only gained when one party violates the fundamental rights of another party - the right to life, the right to property, the right to free speech etc."

[August1991]

Let me flip though this thread and make pertinent comments. If you've followed the thread (to me, the thread is fascinating - thanks MS for starting it), I hope my comments make sense.

I'm talking about market microeconomics, particularly relating to transaction costs and information.

In this area there is strong evidence in favor of the utility of (appropriate) regulation to improve efficiency.

The free market doesn't always work or it sometimes leads to monopoly, perhaps temporary. In these cases, the government in theory could improve things. In practice, it doesn't and the evidence is clear that government regulation makes things worse. Swell, do you have contrary evidence?

The government must make regulations to promote competition even if it doesn't seem that one competitior in the 'race' is directly harming the other.

Idealist, your A,B,C,D argument is basically Marxist and false. By the same logic, big families would dominate in society. [see further below... Winners in life co-operate best. It's not certain the big Wal-Marts will co-operate best. It's not even certain they'll run the fastest.]

I am happy that I am not in the company of socialists like Harper, Martin and Layton. Their ideas are backward-thinking anyway.

Harper? Socialist? Huh?

There are already plenty of people in this country with non-accredited diplomas and degrees etc. (self-accredited by the corps that offer them). I am certain that at a very attractive price, they will offer you lots of medical advice, dental services, and legal advice when you purchase a home or defend you in court.

We do not need the State to accredit diplomas. When it does accredit/guarantee, it creates a false sense of confidence and just makes the learning curve longer and more difficult. At issue here is "The Truth" as in: Can this doctor prescribe the right treatment? Even the State does not have better access to The Truth than we mere mortals.

Please, everyone, stop seeing the State as omniscient and omnipotent. The State has created this impression but it is false. The sooner we all know this, the better for our children and grandchildren - since they will certainly know it.

[Cartman, students do not choose to study at Harvard or McGill because they have State accreditation.]

Efficiency, since the free market provides the best and the most for the least cost, and fairness, because I believe that a man has the right to retain and enjoy what he does and what he produces. Your definition of "fairness" would appear to include depriving individuals of their rightful possessions in order to give them to individuals who do not own them, did not earn them and have no right to them. In private practice, that is called "theft."

Good definition Hugo. I agree. But fairness is an elastic concept. What you do and what you produce are based on the chance lottery of what you are. Is that fair? If your insurance premium is used to pay a claim to the owner of a burned house, is that theft?

Here's an analogy. We have two runners in a race. Those runners may behave as they will to try and affect the outcome, so far as it does not interfere with the ability of the other runner to attempt to affect the outcome. That's the nature of their competition. However, it would not be fair or just for a non-participant to attempt to affect the outcome of the race, say, by moving one runner's starting blocks ahead of the other's. The outcome of such a race would be unfair and would not reflect the true abilities of the runners.

I really dislike this analogy, Hugo. IMV, it misses the whole point. So let me discuss my viewpoint at length.

Two runners compete for a single prize and as such, both expend much effort merely to determine one winner. If the starting blocks are moved, it would probably upset at least one runner. It might change the winner. But for the rest of us, it wouldn't matter at all. How the winner is determined does not matter.

If you think about it, you'll realize that life is not a race of runners. Life is rather what I would call a good marriage. It is two people working together to make each person happy. A race will produce a winner, and a loser. A good marriage produces two winners.

The problem, of course, is that people have a tendency to cheat, even in good marriages.

Mathematics (arithmetic really) was such a great invention because it helped people, inclined to cheat, towards good marriages. Why? Because prices in a market turn people's competitive, cheating instincts into cooperation.

The Olympics don't do that. And neither does your analogy.

What does this have to do with corporations (and their serious troubles)? Well, internally, good corporations want the same as good marriages - they want cooperation and "two" winners.

In our modern society all law is premised on the state's promulgation and enforcement. Property exists because the state enforces it. Contracts take their forms because the courts will enforce them that way. 'Private' arbitrations apply the laws as they exist and are enforceable thru the courts because statutes provide for it.

This is all false. The definition of 'property' is based on complex history - and I'm not even certain the State enforces the definition in many cases. (eg. Why not sue planes flying over your house? Don't you own the air above it? Why not?) As to contract law, if you and I do a complex deal concerning flight paths, we'll include a clause concerning dispute resolution. In my family, "when Dad gets home" was the usual clause. IOW, we chose a private resolution mechanism using private rules, publicly accepted.

You show a frightening ignorance of markets and how they work.

Quite frankly, I have yet to find any glorious insights from you on this matter August.

IMV, markets are a wonderful invention inducing proper collective behaviour from beings who are naturally individualistic. We humans invented mathematics to make ourselves collective. How can I explain this to you?

Math is just a language, but a precise one. Most of us now understand prices. Several thousand years ago, no one could understand even that much.

-----

I'll reserve this for last.

Let me give another, very practical example.  Who decided the rules of English grammar?  The State?  Who enforces these rules?  The State?  It is in the interest of everyone to follow these rules.  Contract law is the same.

No, it's different.

How is it different? That is, how are the laws of grammar different from the laws of contract? Both are designed to make it easier to communicate, deal with one another. Both predate any State you can imagine. In fact, there is no single English dictionary, nor is there a single contract law. (BTW, this is not the same in French. Le Petit Robert is the standard dictionary. And indeed, Quebec is the only jurisdiction in North America that uses the Civil Code, a form of State Contract Law.)

What is the issue? How to help people communicate and deal with one another. Markets using mathematics do this well but don't always work. Families are the oldest way. 'Corporations' and cooperatives another way. The State a newer alternative.

But as individuals, our inclination will always be to cheat. That is, we'll promise to cut the lawn in return for a steak dinner. And we'll promise to spend less time on the phone in return for a spontaneous red rose. But promises are easy to make. And what promises are written down?

[Hugo]

I'm talking about market microeconomics, particularly relating to transaction costs and information.

In this area there is strong evidence in favor of the utility of (appropriate) regulation to improve efficiency.

Then perhaps you will cite some of this "strong evidence." In the meantime I will give you two examples that prove the contrary.

FDR's government was constantly meddling in the economy. It made and changed prices, wages, public spending and so forth in an attempt to "tweak" the economy. Prominent economists have argued that this, in fact, was the reason why the Great Depression lasted so long, that the constant meddling by the Federal government paralysed the economy, and industry was afraid to act or invest because the rules changed on a near-weekly basis.

In Japan, the economy collapsed in about 1993 and has shown no signs of recovery since. In the 1980s, the CIA were holding meetings about how Japanese economic strength might affect the USA, but just last year they convened a think-tank to ponder how Japanese economic frailty might affect the USA.

The reason for this is simple: government micromanagement. The MITI, the Japanese governmental agency responsible for regulating the economy and trade on a per-company basis, has succeeded in discouraging innovation and growth because of its policy of picking "winners" and "losers" rather than letting the market decide. That and Japanese governmental interference in the banking and savings system meant that Japan was unable to recover from the early-90s recession and the savings and loans crisis, and now Japan has no capital left for new investment even though their interest rate has been manipulated to incredible lows. Because of MITI's policy of trade protectionism and insistence upon a trade surplus, Japan literally has no money left in the bank and cannot rebuild her economy as all her capital is tied up overseas.

So you acknowledge the necessity of at least that standard. Now, who promulgates and enforces these rules?

I know you are trying to lead me to say "government" but actually, you will find that the market is quite able to regulate itself in this regard. Consider Microsoft, often held up as a splendid example of monopolistic practices and a reason for anti-trust laws. All that the DoJ has done has affected Microsoft very little, however, consumers are increasingly turning to alternatives in Apple, Linux and others, and Microsoft is finding their market share decreasing in many markets.

This is because monopolies cannot exist under capitalism. As a company moves towards market supremacy, it begins to collapse under its own weight. The very large company suffers from bureaucracy and inefficiency, stagnation and lack of innovation, amongst other faults, and these weaknesses open it up to competition. The larger the company becomes, the greater these weaknesses become, and so it is impossible to reach monopoly. The large company becomes a herd of blundering buffalo, quite open to the attacks of much smaller but far more nimble cheetahs.

Take another look at the East India Company. It held a government-enforced monopoly but in the 18th and 19th Centuries, the directors of that company freely acknowledged that were it not for government cash and government troops the company would go bankrupt within a month.

Harper? Socialist? Huh?

Yes. Harper is the most right-leaning of our major politicians but he is still more socialist than capitalist. He stands for socialised medicine, when any good capitalist knows that a private healthcare market would deliver better healthcare for less cost. He would cut taxes but he has not promised to cut the sales taxes that hurt the poor, damage the economy and stagnate wealth creation, nor would he help create a free market with a flat-rate income tax. Neither has he promised to separate government and economy, not saying a word about the government's stake in key industries such as power generation or the postal service.

If your insurance premium is used to pay a claim to the owner of a burned house, is that theft?

No, because I bought the insurance of my own free will so I consented to its use in such a manner. I also have the power to abrogate my own rights.

I really dislike this analogy, Hugo. IMV, it misses the whole point. So let me discuss my viewpoint at length.

I appreciate your corrections, August, my analogy was probably not the best.

[idealisttotheend]

August said:

Idealist, your A,B,C,D argument is basically Marxist and false. By the same logic, big families would dominate in society. [see further below... Winners in life co-operate best. It's not certain the big Wal-Marts will co-operate best. It's not even certain they'll run the fastest.]

My argument has nothing to do with class struggle per se and I don't see how it's Marxist. I stand by it as the biggest threat to modern capitalism after shorter and shorter terms of reference regarding success or failure (this week's share price vs. keeping the business healthy for a generation).

Big families have nothing to do with this. It's a question of percentages, no one can have a big enough family to have anything even close to even .1% of any society so they can not exert any more influence than small families.

I like your point though "Winners in life co-operate best." I agree wholeheartedly and unreservedly. In fact that may be my raison d’etre economically. We just disagree fundamentally on what constitutes effective cooperation.

Look at the BSE problem. It pointed out very quickly that the packers got along just fine because there were only 2 or 3 (supposedly) competing against one another and there were several thousand producers competing against each other. Consequently packers set the prices not producers (or consumers for that matter as the retail price of beef went on to show). The third world is poor in part because few companies buy resources from many producers and then sell back to many consumers. A Marxist might point out that packers benefited from the power to lay off their workers but that's another argument.

We do not need the State to accredit diplomas. When it does accredit/guarantee, it creates a false sense of confidence and just makes the learning curve longer and more difficult. At issue here is "The Truth" as in: Can this doctor prescribe the right treatment? Even the State does not have better access to The Truth than we mere mortals.

The problem, and it is a persistent one, is that someone must determine the "Truth." or rather thousands upon thousands of small "Truths". Natural law and capitalist doctrine clearly state that any entity will act in it's self interest and it's self interest alone. Therefore, in certain instances the State is the best harbinger of "Truth" as it's self interest is the welfare of it's citizens and not profit or material gain on behalf of said State..

In application, try talking to fifty 'normal' people on the street. Show them a statement by Health Canada that drug X is harmful and statement by Pfizer that drug X (made by Pfizer) is good for them. How many do you reasonably think will trust Pfizer over the State in this instance? The government has every reason to tell the truth the company has it’s profits to think about.

Hugo said:

The reason for this is simple: government micromanagement. The MITI, the Japanese governmental agency responsible for regulating the economy and trade on a per-company basis, has succeeded in discouraging innovation and growth because of its policy of picking "winners" and "losers" rather than letting the market decide. That and Japanese governmental interference in the banking and savings system meant that Japan was unable to recover from the early-90s recession and the savings and loans crisis, and now Japan has no capital left for new investment even though their interest rate has been manipulated to incredible lows. Because of MITI's policy of trade protectionism and insistence upon a trade surplus, Japan literally has no money left in the bank and cannot rebuild her economy as all her capital is tied up overseas.

In this paragraph you make very many points but back none of them up (and I don't mean with links but with logic). For example, is it necessarily MITI's policies that are responsible for these things or other factors (overseas investment as a mechanism of influence or control over outside economies, say for Japan to protect her access to resources and markets which she is traditionally insecure about losing). Where’s the link?

If it is, in fact, MITI's policies then are the problems inherent to them necessarily greater than the ones faced by lassez fair capitalism? The Japanese economy has been one of the most regulated in the world and has been a miracle (posted amazing growth) up until recently. In fact over the past fifty years, the most regulation occurred in the 1950-1973 period and that was the period of highest growth while recently has had the lowest regulation and has had the lowest growth. That doesn't necessitate causation but can't IMV be used to prove causation in the opposite direction (more regulation causes less growth).

Japan does have productivity problems and competitiveness problems but the solutions have been to lay off workers (end lifelong employment and remove surplus workers). While Hjarmar may be dancing in the streets at this prospect I wonder how can you make an economy better by producing net job losses and lower wages. This usually leads to a lower living standard. Isn't the point of an economy to get the most goods into most people's hand as possible?

At best these policies are neutral to the overall good of Japan.

This is because monopolies cannot exist under capitalism. As a company moves towards market supremacy, it begins to collapse under its own weight. The very large company suffers from bureaucracy and inefficiency, stagnation and lack of innovation, amongst other faults, and these weaknesses open it up to competition. The larger the company becomes, the greater these weaknesses become, and so it is impossible to reach monopoly. The large company becomes a herd of blundering buffalo, quite open to the attacks of much smaller but far more nimble cheetahs.

So says the great economics textbook (version 4.1 "With even less reality inside!!") You yourself speak it's "truths" with the zealousness of a true prophet though I respect your use of language.

Microsoft sells 10B worth of Windows and has a 93.8% market share

Microsoft has indeed been losing small amounts of market share in their server and video game business. These are completely ancillary to Microsoft and as a software manufacture are things one would thing they ought not be in at all. However in their primary business line, they have 93.8% market share (which rose slightly in 2003) with 10 billion dollars of annual sales. The only reason it isn't higher is because Apple still sells a few computers here and there and their system has it's own OS. Please explain to me how this is not a monopoly.

"Stagnation and lack of innovation" "Greater weakness" "Blundering Buffalo"

Very, very true about Microsoft. Anyone who knows anything about computers will tell you that Windows is not even a very good OS. It is unstable, full of holes and built on top of twenty year old code which makes it massively inefficient. It is an inferior product and in many respects Microsoft is an inferior company. Internet Explorer is similarly inferior (Microsoft has a measly 70% market share when it comes to browsers.) I've never heard or read anyone even try to claim that IE is better than Netscape and time and again it is shown to have all sorts of security holes. Yet many more people use it, why? Could it be because it comes with Windows and Microsoft makes every effort to make sure it's placed so the casual user will use it and not anything else?

Microsoft has been the flagship of the new economy and in it we find many of the very things wrong with the new economy.

Name one sector where the little guy has beaten the big guy? Just one measly little sector. Car companies? There were plenty of mergers through the twenties and thirties leading to the big three in North America. In the last ten years there have been even more and the companies that aren't actually merged tend to own each other's stock. How about banks? Always begging Ottawa to let them merge.

Retail? Well, Eaton's also got lazy and stupid suffering from bad management at many levels. But.... they didn't get taken out by a (or a number of) smaller competitor(s) but by Wal Mart, the world's largest retailer. In fact, the simple fact that Eaton's wasn't challenged by smaller competitors or by a new entry into the sector even though it was shown to be extremely poorly managed should tell you everything you need to know about your theory. HBC has been doing well since it's management shake-up of the eighties (after buying Zeller's, moving out of the downtowns and getting rid of their politically risky fur and Northern business). Yet all the analysts are saying it just can't compete with Wal Mart and has to be bought by Target to keep it "vibrant." Reason: economies of scale period.

The only possible recent triumph of the small over the little I can think of is Google. It succeeded for the simple fact that it took little capital to start it and little capital or new infrastructure to distribute it. For those reasons the old rules of capitalism still work. IBM got taken down a notch but it is still doing extremely well. Sometimes there is a cultural movement toward a smaller product (say, microbrewed beer or organic produce) but it is usually a luxury fad shared by few not affecting mainstream economics.

But to conclude there have been no examples of large entities falling to smaller competitors in recent years. Even if it was possible, the system has too much at stake to keep the large entities afloat so won't let them go under. To applaud the DoJ failure in attacking Microsoft is to say you are happy with their product and prices and don’t want competition because if Wal Mart writes the book at “controlling” labour costs Microsoft writes the book at using it’s current monopoly position to stake new positions in other application and eliminate competition by bundling and using compatability needs between it’s platform.

Your theory looks good on paper (and is true insofar as big companies tend to get lazy inefficient etc.) but has absolutely no basis in reality.

In fact, now that I think about it, one of the problems with globalization may well be that national borders had previously been a natural check on the trend to ever bigger companies. Now that that check is removed only the biggest (not the best or the most innovative) companies will survive.

[Hugo]

In this paragraph you make very many points but back none of them up (and I don't mean with links but with logic). For example, is it necessarily MITI's policies that are responsible for these things or other factors (overseas investment as a mechanism of influence or control over outside economies, say for Japan to protect her access to resources and markets which she is traditionally insecure about losing). Where’s the link?

First of all, note that Japan's policy of state interference in economics was very different to the US policy, and the US recovered from both the recession and the savings and loans problems just fine.

Protectionism is known to be a cause of economic stagnation. It's easy to follow this with logic, let alone examples. It's a "beggar-thy-neighbour" policy, basically designed to make your economy grow at the expense of your trading partners. Of course, foreign states don't take this lying down and invariably introduce their own protectionist measures (or at least, those who haven't grasped the free market). What this means is that you are cutting off imports from them, and they are cutting off imports from you. That translates into less trade, less money, less jobs. Basically, every industry that imports or exports something will be hurt.

Bruce Bartlett, Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the U.S. Treasury Department, former Senior Policy Analyst in the Office of Policy Development at the White House, has said:

The Japanese invincibility theory was always stupid, but mainly because it completely misunderstood the true basis of Japan's economic strength. It had nothing whatsoever to with MITI and everything to do with the competitiveness of the Japanese economy. General Douglas MacArthur deserves more credit for this than any Japanese government official.

Michael Porter, a professor at Harvard Business School, recently published a book entitled "Can Japan Compete?" in which he opines that Japan succeeded in spite of MITI and not because of it.

Japan continues with protectionism and state interference to this day and it's why they cannot recover.

If it is, in fact, MITI's policies then are the problems inherent to them necessarily greater than the ones faced by lassez fair capitalism? The Japanese economy has been one of the most regulated in the world and has been a miracle (posted amazing growth) up until recently.

Exactly... up until recently. Japan was carried on the strength of MacArthur's reforms. After WWII he used his dictatorial powers to break up the zaibatsu, opening up the market to competition, and, most importantly, to reform the tax system to create a very low tax rate and one structured to economic growth.

However, MITI was a millstone around the Japanese neck and MacArthur also failed to reform the banking system. These problems eventually caught up to Japan and it was only a matter of time before a problem - like the recession and savings and loans crisis - caused the house of cards to collapse.

While Hjarmar may be dancing in the streets at this prospect I wonder how can you make an economy better by producing net job losses and lower wages. This usually leads to a lower living standard.

Well, people have been parading this doomsday scenario since the spinning jenny was invented but ever since then, we seem to have had no growth in unemployment and our real incomes and standards of living keep on rising. In short, it's a red herring.

However in their primary business line, they have 93.8% market share

Desktop OSs, yes. However, desktop operating systems are a very small segment of the computer market and overall, Microsoft has a very small penetration.

many more people use it, why? Could it be because it comes with Windows and Microsoft makes every effort to make sure it's placed so the casual user will use it and not anything else?

Apparently those efforts aren't working. Wal-Mart is now selling Linux PCs. Dell, the largest PC manufacturer, is selling Linux.

Name one sector where the little guy has beaten the big guy?

All of them!

Bill Gates was once the little guy. So was Henry Ford. So was Michael Dell. So was John Rockefeller. So was Donald Trump. Need I continue?

But to conclude there have been no examples of large entities falling to smaller competitors in recent years.

That's because you misunderstand the whole economic system. Wealth can be created from nothing so it is entirely possible for new companies (like Amazon.com, for instance) to arise and become successful without felling large companies. IBM still exists and does very well despite the fact that it was "toppled" by Microsoft, does it not?

Your theory looks good on paper (and is true insofar as big companies tend to get lazy inefficient etc.) but has absolutely no basis in reality.

Then tell me of a monopoly that arose from the free market without state encouragement.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'm talking about market microeconomics, particularly relating to transaction costs and information.

In this area there is strong evidence in favor of the utility of (appropriate) regulation to improve efficiency.

The free market doesn't always work or it sometimes leads to monopoly, perhaps temporary. In these cases, the government in theory could improve things. In practice, it doesn't and the evidence is clear that government regulation makes things worse. Swell, do you have contrary evidence?

I've already explained the basis of my argument:

-(relatively) 'free markets' exist today where before they did not, ergo something explains how they came to be;

-government regulation exists to a greater or lesser extent in all 'free markets', ergo something explains why it does;

-economics tells us that prohibitive information costs will impair the formation of a market;

-regulation can reduce the information costs for those to whom it is prohibitive. The best regulation reduces the information cost, less perfect regulation will redistribute it, poor regulation increases it. Note that even if some potential market participants (e.g. sellers) have costs redistributed to them, this may nevertheless enable the market to form if the buyers' cost is no longer prohibitive;

-any market where a prohibition on wrongdoing cannot be enforced is prohibitively expensive and/or not a 'free market' at all, therefore any 'free market' by definition represents the successful application of a regime of regulation.

In our modern society all law is premised on the state's promulgation and enforcement. Property exists because the state enforces it. Contracts take their forms because the courts will enforce them that way. 'Private' arbitrations apply the laws as they exist and are enforceable thru the courts because statutes provide for it.

This is all false. The definition of 'property' is based on complex history

You're talking about something different than I am. I am talking about the enforcement of property rights, not the historical definition of it.

- and I'm not even certain the State enforces the definition in many cases.  (eg. Why not sue planes flying over your house?  Don't you own the air above it?  Why not?) 

The state enforces a definition of it, i.e. the state's definition. Whatever the state enforces as property, is property. Whatever the state will not enforce is not property.

As to contract law, if you and I do a complex deal concerning flight paths, we'll include a clause concerning dispute resolution.  ... we chose a private resolution mechanism using private rules, publicly accepted.

Where do you go when I simply, ultimately refuse to pay up?

... how are the laws of grammar different from the laws of contract?

Whatever the state enforces as property, is property. Whatever the state will not enforce is not property.

Both predate any State you can imagine.

Law does not predate lawmakers. If it's just you and me on a desert island and we make a deal: You give me a coconut today and I'll give you a fish tomorrow, and tonight I enjoy the coconut, but I won't give you your fish, where is the contract law then?

[The Terrible Sweal]

I'm talking about market microeconomics, particularly relating to transaction costs and information.

In this area there is strong evidence in favor of the utility of (appropriate) regulation to improve efficiency.

Then perhaps you will cite some of this "strong evidence." In the meantime I will give you two examples that prove the contrary.

I refer you to my reply to August, above. As to your examples:

1) I am not advocating any and all indescriminate regulation. I am merely pointing out that it is useful under appropriate conditions. Accordingly, using a small list of example, even if they were germane, would not refute my argument very well.

2) Your examples again focus on the macro-economic level, and thus really don't meet the point I'm making.

So you acknowledge the necessity of at least that standard. Now, who promulgates and enforces these rules?

I know you are trying to lead me to say "government" but actually, you will find that the market is quite able to regulate itself in this regard.

No, look ... The market is itself composed of the reciprocal packages of rights underpinned by the rule of law( i.e. through the state).

[Cartman]

I am not sure whether this is the right place to post this link. Anyone know some background to the story? Seems odd both left at the same time.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...agna040820.html

[Hugo]

The market is itself composed of the reciprocal packages of rights underpinned by the rule of law( i.e. through the state).

This cannot be so. In a market of voluntary trade, there is no point in law. The idea of law is to protect the weak from the strong, but in a free market the weak are not obliged to have anything to do with the strong, therefore, the laws are redundant.

Consider contract law. We have a contract. I break the contract. Now, you could say that you'll go to the government and I'll be punished. However, you could also spread the word that I'm a contract breaker and I'll find it very difficult to deal with others in future. Since I had a contract with you, I'm obviously interested in trade, so for you to do this really hurts me.

any market where a prohibition on wrongdoing cannot be enforced is prohibitively expensive and/or not a 'free market' at all

Define "wrongdoing."

I am merely pointing out that it is useful under appropriate conditions.

What conditions? I have challenged you to provide an example, but you haven't provided any. I want you to actually tell me what you mean. The reason I keep misreading you and talking about macroeconomics and Keynesian economics is because I don't understand what it is you are trying to say.

If it's just you and me on a desert island

This is an invalid example. You and I are not on a desert island, never will be on a desert island and even if we were on a desert island, would not be concerned with trading fish for coconuts.

[Cartman]

August

Harper? Socialist? Huh?

This sounds like a pretty consistent explanation me August (below). Is Hugo not correct in asserting what the right should be seeking if they want to be consistent?

Hugo

Yes. Harper is the most right-leaning of our major politicians but he is still more socialist than capitalist. He stands for socialised medicine, when any good capitalist knows that a private healthcare market would deliver better healthcare for less cost. He would cut taxes but he has not promised to cut the sales taxes that hurt the poor, damage the economy and stagnate wealth creation, nor would he help create a free market with a flat-rate income tax. Neither has he promised to separate government and economy, not saying a word about the government's stake in key industries such as power generation or the postal service.

August

[Cartman, students do not choose to study at Harvard or McGill because they have State accreditation.]

Though I entirely disagree with the conclusions made, I understand Hugo's perspective. I do not understand your position on the matter August. Seems to me that this is a pretty valuable public service.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... in a free market the weak are not obliged to have anything to do with the strong, therefore, the laws are redundant.

But that position begs the question. How does the market become free in the first place?

Consider contract law. We have a contract. I break the contract. Now, you could say that you'll go to the government and I'll be punished. However, you could also spread the word that I'm a contract breaker and I'll find it very difficult to deal with others in future. Since I had a contract with you, I'm obviously interested in trade, so for you to do this really hurts me.

Hurting you doesn't help me. Your whole example is based on a negative-welfare outcome.

any market where a prohibition on wrongdoing cannot be enforced is prohibitively expensive and/or not a 'free market' at all

Define "wrongdoing."

You defined 'unfair advantage' already, that was fine.

I am merely pointing out that it is useful under appropriate conditions.

What conditions? I have challenged you to provide an example, but you haven't provided any.

I think you need to re-read the thread.

I want you to actually tell me what you mean. The reason I keep misreading you and talking about macroeconomics and Keynesian economics is because I don't understand what it is you are trying to say.

I'm not trying to be obscure, I'm actually trying to be clear. Consider any basic future contract: You give me Z today, and I'll give you W tomorrow. Whatever my true intentions may be about honoring the contract, the contract will only happen based on (all other things being equal) your belief about my intentions and capabilities. If you can't price the risk of my default, you won't trade.

If it's just you and me on a desert island

This is an invalid example. You and I are not on a desert island, never will be on a desert island and even if we were on a desert island, would not be concerned with trading fish for coconuts.

Cheap evasion, but funny.

[Hugo]

But that position begs the question. How does the market become free in the first place?

It becomes free when government withdraws from it.

Hurting you doesn't help me. Your whole example is based on a negative-welfare outcome.

This argument could also be used to abolish the whole criminal justice system. After all, if I kill you, imprisoning me won't bring you back to life. That's based on a negative-welfare outcome.

Or we could accept that hurting me is a deterrent to others that might do what I did, and that the threat of hurting me may be enough to stop me doing what I was going to do in the first place.

If you can't price the risk of my default, you won't trade.

I don't understand how government micromanagement comes into all this. As far as I am aware, any problems under a free market can be dealt with under criminal law (e.g. theft or murder) on a basis that deals with the individuals involved rather than companies and economics.

After all, a company can be thousands of individuals, and in a crime that the company "commits" only a handful of those individuals may be complicit, so why punish all the thousands that had nothing to do with it by penalising the company, jeopardising their livelihoods and so forth?

Say, for example, we've got a company that's dumping toxic waste in the river and causing children playing in the river downstream to get horrible skin lesions. The act is an act of criminal negligence. So, we find the guy who signed the order to dump the chemicals and we find the guys who actually dumped the chemicals and we make a case against them in front of a jury, in which we try to prove that they knew what they were doing was wrong and would cause injury and their lawyers try to prove the opposite, and those individuals alone are held accountable. Does that not sound fair?

All this talk of punishing companies is reminiscent of the leftist tendency to view corporations and business as massive, faceless and inhuman entities when in fact, they are collections of individual human beings just like you or I.

To be fair to August, I think this was an original point of his some pages back.

[idealisttotheend]

Hugo:

I will defer to you, temporarily on Japan since I don't know that much about it but I still disagree.

Well, people have been parading this doomsday scenario since the spinning jenny was invented but ever since then, we seem to have had no growth in unemployment and our real incomes and standards of living keep on rising. In short, it's a red herring

Since the innovation of the spinning jenny more and more products have been produced to fill the gap and keep the majority of the human race labouring. For this not to be a doomsaday senario more products must be produced and consumed at a rate equal to the increase in productivity. Else, the system (i.e. the wage economy) fails gradually usually. Furthermore the issue is multilateral trade. Basically if unfettered trade ought to make the poor rich and the rich poorer (save those who directly control the capital, technology, infrastructure). Throughout human history trade has never been so liberal across the world (consider also that technology makes it easier (read cheaper) to transport things between diverse parts of the world) so there is no real precendent.

Desktop OSs, yes. However, desktop operating systems are a very small segment of the computer market and overall, Microsoft has a very small penetration.

A) The OS is the standard to which all software used on the PC is applied. It's a big deal.

B. Microsoft is not concerned with the computer market, only the OS part. Considering Mr. Gates is the richest man in the world, "desktop operating systems" don't seem to be all that small a part. Nor is 10 Billion dollars in annual sales. You cannot make your argument by simply expanding the scope of the sector the company in question is said to be monopolizing.

ill Gates was once the little guy. So was Henry Ford. So was Michael Dell. So was John Rockefeller. So was Donald Trump. Need I continue?

Note (well) that most of the people on your list are people that started at the very beginning of the sector in question. Gates started Windows when no one else was in the market and by licencing to IBM he simply sold to a very large well established corporation. No one realized it's value since it was so new. Ford started small too, but by empoying Taylorism and mass production techniques he built himself a very large company that while not a monopoly consistantly succeeds despite itself. Since the car was invented or the computer (say 20 years after either) there are no stories of the little guy beating the big guy. Furthermore we are dealing with companies not individuals.

I believe my point stands. There are no (or rather very very few as there must be at least one even if I can't think of it) large companies that have fallen to significantly smaller competitors in recent economic history. Big companies are built by then little men (Asper, Patterson, Thomson, Molson etc.) but little men don't put the bug guys out of buisness.

If you know a few please point them out that break this rule please point them out.

That's because you misunderstand the whole economic system. Wealth can be created from nothing so it is entirely possible for new companies (like Amazon.com, for instance) to arise and become successful without felling large companies. IBM still exists and does very well despite the fact that it was "toppled" by Microsoft, does it not?

IBM (in the bonehead move of all time) failed to further monopolize the computer market by buying the rights to Windows but note that Microsoft and IBM are in fundamentally different buiness. One company writes software and one makes hardware, the two need each other but they are very different buisnesses.

Wealth cannot be created by nothing. It can only be multiplied at varying rates.

Then tell me of a monopoly that arose from the free market without state encouragement.

Complex cause

Begging the question

Straw Man

...are just some of the logical fallacies possible from this argument.

Since states exist in all places, you can argue that states are responsible for anything and everything that has and hasn't happened in this large world. Some of the thousands of actions the state takes may encourage monopolies (Crowns, subsidies to large companies, controlling oil prices etc) but on balance the state tries to disuade monopolies (and promote competition) not encourage them unless it is fascist or near fascist (say right wing Republican) or communist.

Unless you believe we have a planned economy, the state cannot hold primary responsibility for anything that happens in the free market.

[August1991]

Law does not predate lawmakers. If it's just you and me on a desert island and we make a deal: You give me a coconut today and I'll give you a fish tomorrow, and tonight I enjoy the coconut, but I won't give you your fish, where is the contract law then?

Swell, let me take the hindmost because it seems this resolve many of our problems.

If we are on a desert island and you don't honour the contract, then the only thing I can do is to deal no longer with you. But why would you do that? That is, would you give up all the future benefits of trading with me to get one night of coconut?

I dislike this example though. We don't live on an island with only one other person. We live on islands with millions of people.

How do you think credit cards work? IOW, you seem to think that contract law is like sport rules, people will cheat to get ahead if they can. On the contrary, contract law is like the rules of grammar. It makes no sense to cheat because you'll only cheat yourself.

The purpose of contract law is to make explicit to both parties what they must give and what they will get. In the case of breach, it makes explicit what damages are to be paid. It is in everyone's interest to do this.

In a race, I have every reason to make you quit the game. In a trade, I don't want you to leave.

Whatever the state enforces as property, is property. Whatever the state will not enforce is not property.

Huh? Millions of people work in the United States despite having no legal status there. Their property rights are respected. People regularly buy and sell illegal drugs yet the State does not offer any protection of property rights. Indeed, in many jurisdictions the State is the worst protector of property rights. People frequently rely on private means to protect themselves. We are witnessing major changes in the definition and protection of intellectual property rights. I'd wager that the State will be the last entity to get involved in this debate.

The world is a big place and with 6 billion people, it should not be surprising that there are many ways to skin the cat of property right protection.

Property right definition is important because it should be simple and clear, and it should not be open for redefinition. It matters less who does this. I'm not sure that our economy works better because the State does this than that the definitions are usually clear.

-(relatively) 'free markets' exist today where before they did not, ergo something explains how they came to be;

-government regulation exists to a greater or lesser extent in all 'free markets', ergo something explains why it does;

-economics tells us that prohibitive information costs will impair the formation of a market;

-regulation can reduce the information costs for those to whom it is prohibitive.

....

therefore any 'free market' by definition represents the successful application of a regime of regulation.

Your long explanation is entirely theoretical. In theory, the State will only execute criminals and let innocent people free. In theory. In practice, it's a different story.

I asked you for a concrete example where regulation improved things.

----

I hope I don't sound so anti-State that I'm an anrachist or something. By and large, I can see why criminal law is enforced by the State - although I can see how it doesn't have to be.

In general though, there is a whole area of property rights where the State is seriously derelict. For example, it does not protect environmental rights. And it does not adequately protect the rights of children.

If we are to consider the State and Left vs. Right, I think we should start there.

[Hugo]

I will defer to you, temporarily on Japan since I don't know that much about it but I still disagree.

I don't understand. You cannot refute my facts, you cannot dispute my logic and yet you still cannot bring yourself to agree with me. Cast off your prejudices.

Since the innovation of the spinning jenny more and more products have been produced to fill the gap and keep the majority of the human race labouring. For this not to be a doomsaday senario more products must be produced and consumed at a rate equal to the increase in productivity.

Yes, that's capitalism. To believe it is impossible is like the man who claimed, in the 1870s, that there was no need for a patent office because everything that could be invented has been invented.

Basically if unfettered trade ought to make the poor rich and the rich poorer

No, it makes everyone richer.

Microsoft is not concerned with the computer market, only the OS part.

False. Microsoft makes more revenue from Office than from Windows.

Note (well) that most of the people on your list are people that started at the very beginning of the sector in question.

Also false. Bill Gates was a latecomer to the computer market and the desktop market. IBM and DEC had been there long before him. Henry Ford was a latecomer to the car industry, men like Renault and Benz were building cars for sale long before he. Dell was very much a latecomer to the PC market. Trump was very much a latecomer to the real estate market.

Furthermore we are dealing with companies not individuals.

Companies are individuals.

If you know a few please point them out that break this rule please point them out.

Already done.

Wealth cannot be created by nothing. It can only be multiplied at varying rates.

That's self-contradictory. Multiplying is creating from nothing. If I have two apples, and I multiply them to four (not acquire, multiply), where have those extra apples come from?

Unless you believe we have a planned economy, the state cannot hold primary responsibility for anything that happens in the free market.

The state holds primary responsibility for every monopoly in history, from the East India Company to Canada's power generation.

[The Terrible Sweal]

But that position begs the question. How does the market become free in the first place?

It becomes free when government withdraws from it.

Then define 'government'. I think you'll find that there are plenty of things other than government that prevent a free market from arising.

Hurting you doesn't help me. Your whole example is based on a negative-welfare outcome.

This argument could also be used to abolish the whole criminal justice system. After all, if I kill you, imprisoning me won't bring you back to life. That's based on a negative-welfare outcome.

Or we could accept that hurting me is a deterrent to others that might do what I did, and that the threat of hurting me may be enough to stop me doing what I was going to do in the first place.

So, why do you prefer the negative-welfare method?

If you can't price the risk of my default, you won't trade.

I don't understand how government micromanagement comes into all this.

I don't know what you mean by 'government micromanagement', or why you use that term here. I am discussing the utility of appropriate regulation, not 'micromanagement'. I think you're having a persistent problem discerning between what your ideology tells you I'm saying and what I'm actually saying.

As far as I am aware, any problems under a free market can be dealt with under criminal law (e.g. theft or murder) on a basis that deals with the individuals involved rather than companies and economics.

Two things:

1-such purported distinction between 'criminal' and other sorts of law is specious, from an economic perspective;

2-you have already admitted that criminal law is based on a negative-welfare outcome. As such, I ask you: if indeed regulation can produce a positive-welfare option, would you not prefer it?

Say, for example, we've got a company that's dumping toxic waste in the river ...

That's not the type of regulation I mean. I'm talking about regulation relating to participant information and transaction costs, whereas that example relates to allocation of negative externalities (i.e. primarily affecting non-participants).

All this talk of punishing companies ...

Has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

[Hugo]

Then define 'government'.

The state. The judicial, legislative and executive. Those with arbitrary power. Those who derive their power from themselves rather than from others. You know what government is. Don't obfuscate.

I think you'll find that there are plenty of things other than government that prevent a free market from arising.

And why is this a good reason to add another?

So, why do you prefer the negative-welfare method?

Why do you? Your idea of contractural law, enforced by the state, uses exactly the same method, the penalties just differ.

I am discussing the utility of appropriate regulation, not 'micromanagement'.

Regulation is management. You already told me you were not talking about macromanagement, so I infer that you are talking about micromanagement. If you are not talking about management you are not talking about regulation.

if indeed regulation can produce a positive-welfare option, would you not prefer it?

Sure, but it cannot, so that's the end of that discussion. The free market offers the positive-welfare option, i.e. the promise of reward for trade and production. Government regulation does not promise reward (at least, not in the long run, and not to everybody), it promises punishment.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Then define 'government'.

The state. The judicial, legislative and executive. Those with arbitrary power. Those who derive their power from themselves rather than from others. You know what government is. Don't obfuscate.

I think you'll find that there are plenty of things other than government that prevent a free market from arising.

And why is this a good reason to add another?

I wasn't obfuscating. I was wondering whether you would include self-regulating guilds or combines, for example, in your definition of government.

As to the question why add another, you ought already know my answer since it's the point of this discussion between us: because it can improve the efficiency of the market (typically by ameliorating the problems caused by the others).

So, why do you prefer the negative-welfare method?

Why do you? Your idea of contractural law, enforced by the state, uses exactly the same method, the penalties just differ.

First, I don't. I'm talking about regulation which IMPROVES efficiency for a net gain in welfare.

Second, you're mistaken: contract law doesn't typically impose 'penalties' at all.

Third, contract law is merely an example of the range regulatory action I believe can be useful.

I am discussing the utility of appropriate regulation, not 'micromanagement'.

Regulation is management. You already told me you were not talking about macromanagement, so I infer that you are talking about micromanagement.

Please don't let terms slip around here. A little precision please, or don't you understand the difference between the terms macro- and micro- economics, and micro-management? In any event, I refered to what we can learn from micro-economics, and this has no necessary connection to micro-management as you seem to use the term.

Now when you say "Regulation is management", I note you have dropped the 'micro' part. So now I don't know what argumentative content the equation (regulation = management) is supposed to have. Is that a bad thing? Why?

if indeed regulation can produce a positive-welfare option, would you not prefer it?

Sure, but it cannot, so that's the end of that discussion.

Very amusing. Your assertion is the end of the discussion? I think we're back at the beginning, with me saying that microeconomic theory explains the existence of regulation, and history proving what the theory would predict.

The free market offers the positive-welfare option, i.e. the promise of reward for trade and production. Government regulation does not promise reward (at least, not in the long run, and not to everybody), it promises punishment.

Again, your ideology is preventing you from listening to my point: I am saying that regulation can and does contribute to the efficiency of the market (i.e. its contribution to positive-welfare). You accept the role of deterence through criminal regulation, as essential, but you refuse to accept the possiblity that differently constructed regulation can be useful. Why one and not the other? Why the negative, but not the neutral or positive?

[Hugo]

I was wondering whether you would include self-regulating guilds or combines, for example, in your definition of government.

It depends upon whether they have arbitrary power or whether they derive power from individuals who can choose to empower them or to not.

because it can improve the efficiency of the market

But you have not proven that. I have been back over this entire thread, to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I cannot find any proof from you of this. All I find is unjustified statements like "Information and transactional inequity are known to hinder market growth."

The only two examples you have given were insurance and traffic regulation. Both of these were attacked and you did not defend them. Interference in insurance, for instance, can be demonstrated to develop higher premiums and worse value.

Imagine that car insurance is extended to cover maintenance. Everybody now starts getting their oil changed every 1000km and changing their tires instead of rotating them, because they don't associate a cost with these services anymore. Premiums go up in obvious response. People complain and the government "regulates" it by creating insurance-aid, for instance, for the poor who now cannot afford car insurance. Now people are literally getting car maintenance for free. They get even more of it. Car garages start price gouging because the government picks up the tab and people no longer ask, "how much is it?" Oil changes cost $500. The insurance-aid becomes prohibitively expensive and the government raises taxes to cover the bills. People start complaining that insurance-aid doesn't cover enough and should cover nonessential items like hubcaps.

After the government "regulation", premiums are through the roof, garages are mired in inefficiency and waste, taxes have been raised, in short, we have a monstrous problem, everybody is paying more and getting less, and the only viable solution is for government to undo everything it just did and keep at arm's length in the future.

You also mentioned traffic regulations. I refer you to Germany's autobahns.

If you feel you have a better example, or wish to refine your earlier ones and be specific, please feel free.

I'm talking about regulation which IMPROVES efficiency for a net gain in welfare.

Such as what?

contract law doesn't typically impose 'penalties' at all.

Oh? Then how is it enforced?

Now when you say "Regulation is management", I note you have dropped the 'micro' part.

Management includes micromanagement and macromanagment as sub-groups, therefore when I say regulation is management, I mean micromanagement and macromanagement. If you are regulating the economy or a part thereof you are attempting to manage it towards a pre-determined goal, in your case, efficiency.

I think we're back at the beginning, with me saying that microeconomic theory explains the existence of regulation

But it does not, and I already went over this. Because an institution exists does not prove that the theory behind it is correct. Remember my example of absolute monarchy?

I am saying that regulation can and does contribute to the efficiency of the market

And yet, you have repeatedly failed to prove it.

I refuse to move further in this debate until you can definitively prove to me that government regulation of the economy demonstrably produces, or even that it can demonstrably produce, greater efficiency. Until then we are arguing with a premise that has not been established, so any conclusion we may come to will necessarily be flawed.

[Cartman]

Hmmm...I would really like to know if there is something going on here or if this is mere coincidence. With all of the recent corporate scandals, I find myself increasingly suspicious when execs. leave under such circumstances.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/...bin_040823.html