Microsoft Break-up Broken [Sep 06, 2001, 10:38 am ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
Microsoft Won't Be Broken Up
is an Associated Press story (thanks Adrenaline Vault)
with the news that there will be no further follow-up to the anti-trust-related
break up of Microsoft ordered last year (story) that was
subsequently reversed by an appeals court (story) which vacated
the breakup order "on remedies, remand the case for reconsideration of the
remedial order." According the new report, "The Bush
administration, reversing the Clinton White House legal strategy against
Microsoft, told the software manufacturer Thursday it no longer seeks to have
the company broken up. The department also said it will not pursue the bundling
issues in its protracted antitrust suit against the software giant."
"I wish everyone who likes to equate a capitalistic economy and so-called "free" market system with actual freedom and/or happiness, would take a look at what is happening in both China and the former Soviet Union. Now that many in the latter are no longer enslaved by communism (not socialism, there is a big difference) they are enjoying the freedom to starve and other glories of capitalism. Organized crime and prostitution are skyrocketing while a few get rich and many fall further into poverty. As bad as communism is, many people in Russia now long for its return. "
One of Russia's biggest problem is that it is ruled by the mob; the gang that used to occupy the communist party, has turned into a mafia power after the fall. Russia isn't anywhere near capitalistic, it has very few components of capitalism. Beyond that, communism had destroyed the country to such a great extent, under the best conditions Russia would be hard pressed to get back on it's feet in a few decades. Russia is enjoying few if any parts of capitalism; and yes, freedom entails the freedom to starve if you don't *earn* your living. The few aren't getting rich, the few have always been rich under communism, it is just now a more public issue: the gangsters that used to hold the power in the communist party are still gangsters, just in a different political structure.
"Further into poverty," that is a slap in the face to the Russians who have known some of the greatest levels of poverty in history; there isn't much "further" to it.
---
"As for China, what better example could there be that a "free market" doesn't really "free" anyone, except for the freedom for some to make more money. Even with an economic system growing more capitalistic everyday the government still wages war on IDEAS and individuals--with the enthusiastic financial support of many American and international businesses all too happy to make a buck--who gives a shit if a few "pro-democracy" demonstrators get crushed by tanks, right? There’s money to be made!"
China does not have a free market. An economic system does not "grow more capitalistic" a political system does (an economic system would become more oriented toward the free market). China's political structure is not growing more capitalistic: the communists are simply accepting bribes (whereas before they did not allow any foreign investment), which isn't an uncommon practice with communism - communists in the USSR did the same thing, it's essentially an extortion racket; which is why the communist leadership (and their friends) does fine under communism, but everyone else suffers to a great extent.
One of Russia's biggest problem is that it is ruled by the mob; the gang that used to occupy the communist party, has turned into a mafia power after the fall. Russia isn't anywhere near capitalistic, it has very few components of capitalism. Beyond that, communism had destroyed the country to such a great extent, under the best conditions Russia would be hard pressed to get back on it's feet in a few decades. Russia is enjoying few if any parts of capitalism; and yes, freedom entails the freedom to starve if you don't *earn* your living. The few aren't getting rich, the few have always been rich under communism, it is just now a more public issue: the gangsters that used to hold the power in the communist party are still gangsters, just in a different political structure.
"Further into poverty," that is a slap in the face to the Russians who have known some of the greatest levels of poverty in history; there isn't much "further" to it.
---
"As for China, what better example could there be that a "free market" doesn't really "free" anyone, except for the freedom for some to make more money. Even with an economic system growing more capitalistic everyday the government still wages war on IDEAS and individuals--with the enthusiastic financial support of many American and international businesses all too happy to make a buck--who gives a shit if a few "pro-democracy" demonstrators get crushed by tanks, right? There’s money to be made!"
China does not have a free market. An economic system does not "grow more capitalistic" a political system does (an economic system would become more oriented toward the free market). China's political structure is not growing more capitalistic: the communists are simply accepting bribes (whereas before they did not allow any foreign investment), which isn't an uncommon practice with communism - communists in the USSR did the same thing, it's essentially an extortion racket; which is why the communist leadership (and their friends) does fine under communism, but everyone else suffers to a great extent.
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2021 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2021 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 6 March 2021, 09:00.