Staredit Network

Microsoft. Anti-trust proceedings were launched against Microsoft in 1998. MS won on appeal in US courts, after having to settle for billions of dollars with various parties (Real Networks, Sun Microsystems and others). The judge had recommended that MS be split into two companies, but this never happened.

However, European courts fined MS for over half a billion dollars and ordered them to release versions of Windows which didn't allow MS to dominate the audio market (i.e. without WMP). The EU courts rejected Microsoft's appeal against its ruling.

[paraphrased from Wikipedia]

Nice to see that us Europeans are standing firm against monopolies.

Monopolies are impossible in a free maket? Lol!

What kinda market do you think we had in the late 1800s? A free market. Do you know how many monopolies we had back then?

And did you know Microsoft was becoming a monopoly in a free market? Hmm? Right up until the government broke them apart.

America is fine as it is with the exception of the president.

I think monopolies are impossible today in a free market, that also be what ihatett means. By the way, not everything wrong in this country is the president's fault, just letting you know that, I don't think some of you have realized that.

Ya, they're "impossible" today because the government keeps an eye on them. If the government isn't keeping them in line, monopolies can exist. Well, his economic plan, is basically saying, get rid of the government and just make it companies. So who's gonna keep an eye on the company that starts to take total control? No one, that's who.

Yes, I do agree with you on the president part. Not everything is the president's fault, but some of it is. Don't deny that.

Incase that directed towards me, I was only talking about the ones that exist in America. I knew about da beers for about a year now, they're the only reason why diamonds cost so much, and how they're actually much easier to find then most people may think. Yet they still cost so much, and are considered pretty rare. (Due to them being a monopoly, they can determine how many diamonds come into the market)

Just defending my ego, that's all.

It would be funny for someone to go and steal a bunch of diamond from them, only to find that they are worthless afterwards.
Ok, I believe that peoples opinions to the political parties is slightly scewed.
most of you say that democrats are for the people and republicans are for the rich. This isn't the case. If you were a politician, just consider this, not only do the rich people have more money overall then the lower class, the money is also given to fewer people, meaning that they can each part with more money than the masses of poor.
That eaquals a substantially bigger paycheck, which most people don't miss. There aren't many powerfull politicians who care specifically for the lower classes, at most they consider both sides of the nation.

As for what the historical definition of the two parties is: Democrats are for change, if something is new, or simply different to whats happening, they fight for it. They would take risks to change the nation for the better. Republicans on the other hand try hard to maintain status quoue. They resist change, trying to keep things the same because it worked for them. Many rich people become republicans simply because the current system made them rich. The change could stop the profits pouring in. The poor on the other hand want things to change because it is not working for them, as they are still poor.

I had to go.

@ Alpha

Let me get this straight:

You cook up a conspiracy about the free market spawning monopolies, yet you can't come up with a single example? And you think your inability to do this supports your side? Incredible, I never knew that someone could be this stupid.


In general: a monopoly can not exist in a free market, period. There is one "exception":

If one company's product is vastly superior to their competitors', and other companies can't figure out how to compete, then that company will get tons of market share. However, if they ever decide to jack up their prices, consumers can still make a choice between the highly expensive superior product, or the inexpensive inferior one. There is nothing evil there. As long as consumers have choice, it's all OK.


By the way, it's so many of you versus me, why can't one of you open minded socialists switch sides?

Because your views are twisted, and tainted.

Uhh..Were not versus you, were versus your ideas. So far, you have proven Rediculousness cubed.

You sometimes mention that the rich give money to charity...let me try to clarify this even though I believe its already understood by everyone else.

When they do give charity, they pick out a small portion out of their ocean of money. Why do they even give money to charity? even though its nothing? Because it gives a good impression to people, gives them a good image. Even though its practically no money, I can already see this *Trick* has worked.

I'll ask the same question some people have asked aswell, Why have so much money for one person (Or familly)? Why do you support the rich?

I'm just unable to understand such stubborness. So far, I've been very amazed at people's answers to your posts. But really, I don't think its of any use to continue.

Like I've said before, When someone doesn't wish to see and closes his vision very tightly. Its absolutly no use trying to convince him. We could give you a thousand reasons or facts or statistics whatever, I'm pretty sure your mind will have stayed the same.

You can't change Ihatett's views. He is to stubborn and thinks he is always right when everyone else is wrong.

I hate to say it Ihatett, but capitalism only works to a certain extent. While it can be minimal, there needs to be SOME governmental regulation. If there is not, other companies will get too much power and abuse it.

I am no more opinionated than you; it's a common tactic of leftists to claim that everyone except themselves are closed minded. Sorry, but no one's buying it. You guys are the most dishonest people on the planet. Speaking of dishonesty, do you even know how much Bill Gates gives to charity? I'll give you the pleasuer of doing a 2-second google search.

Of course, not everyone is as ridiculously generous as he; many give their money purely for PR purposes. But so what? It does't matter why they're giving money; they don't even have to give anything. It's their own property.

Can you please just cut the bullsh-t? You mention this in every "* Discussion" topic you reply in where people decide to go against you. Your tactics really are to try to belittle your opponent(s). How about a discussion in which you don't assume we're all "leftists" out to argue with you?

On topic, I find that most people have no idea about economics and the difference between captialism and communism. Mini is totally right, though Communism may be going a bit too far, government regulation is needed to protect the smaller businesses and prevent monopolies.

Who says that all of us are Leftists anyway? In my own country, I'm right wing.

I agree to an extent with hate's comments about some leftists being liars, but then right wingers lie through their teeth too.

I was listening to the radio last night and various people were discussing the best ways to deal with terrorism in the UK. Amongst others, there were the following people on the show:

- An Iranian-American working in Iran.
- An American liberal thinker.
- A former CIA director working in Germany.
- A witness to the July 7th attacks in London.
- A right-wing, well-spoken Englishman.

To be honest, what the liberal thinker said appeared to be rather idealistic, and when others such as the CIA man contradicted him with ideas that seemed to make more sense, he shifted his viewpoint slightly each time without appearing to do so.

I think this is what hate means by 'lying' - that moderate leftists often have less conviction in their viewpoints and are more likely to be flexible. Whether that is a good thing or not, I leave for you to decide for yourselves. Personally, I think it displays a greater willingness to consider the relative merits of each side of an argument and not any serious weakness, although of course there are times when strong conviction is needed.

ihatett has his conspiracy theory about leftists, he also seems to think that just because a rich guy sacrificed the ability to buy not six rolls-royces, but one, makes him some kind of generous demigod. Capitalism is fine, just keep those deregualtion and freemarket privitization schemes away from me. If companies were not regulated, do you know what would happen? Chaos. Hey, google the reports on the New Mexico Wackenhut prisons, and compare their private statsitics with normal government prisons'. Sure they did it at less of a cost, but abuse was rampant, the guards lacked vital equipment (their radios didnt even have a panic button), police had to shut down the prison mutliple times, guards were killed, etc., etc.

Bill Gates may be one example proving otherwise, but not every rich person in history has been a philanthropist.

It has come to my attention that ihatett is not actually a capitalist, he actually
supports a form of monarchy where the rich rule over the rest (and if you say otherwise because of the "competition" that you support, even in monarchy there still is competition between the different levels of high society). And if you say you support the democratic process then I say constitutional monarchy.

I'm neither right nor left wing.

I'm straight-winged. I just go with what's best for me, my country, and the people of our country.

If you donate to charity, you can get tax breaks. He's saving money, by giving money.

I'm done with you hate, I'm just done arguing with you. This site for people who actually debate. (and/or make maps) Not for people who sit in denial and call everyone who doesn't agree with them X label. Please, stop wasting our time.